Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 At 11:28 AM 6/13/03 -0500, Logan wrote: > I am now on disability, and I am supposed to get " Medicare " , but it >is useless. Why do they have you on medicare instead of medicaid? Sparrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 At 12:00 PM 6/13/03 -0700, Klein wrote: > wrote: > >> Gack, and I thought Medicaid was bad with its " glasses only once >> every two years " rule. (With the rate my eyesight was going >> downhill, that meant being half-blind by the time I could get new >> glasses at one point.) > >That's not Medicaid; that's Medi-Cal. Medicaid in Arizona does not >cover glasses at all, ever. Medicaid in Idaho covers new lenses when you need them but new frames every two years. I wear contact lenses, though, so I've never taken advantage of the free eye stuff other than exams. I hate the sensation of having frames around everything I look at and it makes me have dreams at night with frames in them and for some reason, the frames in my dream send me into a panic. I also don't like the sensatin of having something sitting on my face all day and sliding off when I look down and getting smeary and always having to be wiped clean. So I spend about $35/year on disposable contact lenses (but I wear them longer than they recommend. They say to wear them for two weeks but I wear them for about three months. They're the same as regular contact lenses, after all.) And I spend about $12/year on supplies to take care of them and I pay the eye doctor the $25 extra in cash to add the contact exam to the regular eye exam since medicaid will cover the eye exam but not the contact lens part of it. Sparrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 > > >> I am now on disability, and I am supposed to get " Medicare " , but it >>is useless. >> >> >Why do they have you on medicare instead of medicaid? >Sparrow > > Medicare is what I get with disability. I don't qualify for Medicade. Years ago, when I lived in California, I applied for Medi-Cal, and was denied. They said that would not qualify because i was a single male between the ages of 18 and 65. Thye said that those in that group would never qualify, even if income was $0. When I asked what i would do if i got sick or injured, the response was a loud silence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 At 06:43 PM 6/13/03 -0500, Logan wrote: > Medicare is what I get with disability. I don't qualify for >Medicade. The only people I've met who got medicare because they didn't qualify for medicaid were on SSD, getting well over $1000/month. Which state are you in? > Years ago, when I lived in California, I applied for >Medi-Cal, and was denied. They said that would not qualify because i >was a single male between the ages of 18 and 65. Thye said that those >in that group would never qualify, even if income was $0. They either lied to you or changed their criteria because I know a California man online who is in his 30s and has medi-cal for his fibromyalgia. > When I asked >what i would do if i got sick or injured, the response was a loud silence. They would get in legal trouble if they told you the real answer. The real answer is to go and get medical care anyway. If you are injured, hospitals have to treat you whether you have money or insurance or not. If you are sick enough to go to the doctor, just go to the doctor. They don't ask you to pay until after they treat you. That's the real answer but because they are federal employees, they would get fired if they told you that. Sparrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2003 Report Share Posted June 14, 2003 Politically I am conservative with a very small c in as far as I like to conserve the good natural things in life, but a liberal on sexual and reproductive issues. However, one person's freedom stops where it infringes on someone else's. Freedoms and rights are counterbalanced by responsibilities to ensure they are equitably distributed and we care enough for future generations. Am I free to listen to Led Zepellin at full blast in a densely populated neighbourhood? In a community where guns are seen on TV and in video-games and only allowed in controlled environments such as shooting ranges, how would allowing American-style gun ownership protect us? And I say this amid a dramatic rise alcohol-induced domestic violence. One issue that taxes me is the growing freedom of the media, adveretising and entertainment industry to brainwash the rest of us, set trends and bring about far-reaching societal change, e.g. the rise in smarminess is to a large extent due to advertising, TV and corporate culture. For the record, I have been unemployed without claiming unemployment benefit and do not get any disability benefit, so against all the odds I pay my way. Neil G. Re: damn liberals > > > > > >> I am now on disability, and I am supposed to get " Medicare " , but it > >>is useless. > >> > >> > >Why do they have you on medicare instead of medicaid? > >Sparrow > > > > > > Medicare is what I get with disability. I don't qualify for > Medicade. Years ago, when I lived in California, I applied for > Medi-Cal, and was denied. They said that would not qualify because i > was a single male between the ages of 18 and 65. Thye said that those > in that group would never qualify, even if income was $0. When I asked > what i would do if i got sick or injured, the response was a loud silence. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2003 Report Share Posted June 14, 2003 Neil Gardner wrote: > Politically I am conservative with a very small c in as far as I like > to conserve the good natural things in life, but a liberal on sexual > and reproductive issues. However, one person's freedom stops where it > infringes on someone else's. Freedoms and rights are counterbalanced > by responsibilities to ensure they are equitably distributed and we > care enough for future generations. Am I free to listen to Led > Zepellin at full blast in a densely populated neighbourhood? In a > community where guns are seen on TV and in video-games and only > allowed in controlled environments such as shooting ranges, how would > allowing American-style gun ownership protect us? By giving pause to those who would use them for evil? The UK has a high rate of " hot " burglary, which is burglary with people in the home. That is so because the people at home do not scare the burglar. In the US, 90% of burglaries are not " hot. " In the US, criminals cite armed " victims " as their biggest fear-- more so than the police, who are not going to be present when the criminal attacks. The US stull has higher murder rates, but the UK and Australia passed the US in overall violent crime some time ago, and the gun murder rate will eventually catch up with the US in both if nothing changes (ie the trend is on the rise there). I have read in the English press online where Manchester has been called " Gunchester " because of all of the gun crime there. Despite the UK's island status, unlawful Eastern bloc guns have been flooding in. In the US, with a much longer coastline and two long, largely unguarded borders, we would never even begin to have the control that the UK has over its shores... and that control the UK has is not enough. Trying to control gun crime by means of controlling the gun is a strategy that has failed. It takes a lot more than simply banning a gun to control the complex problem of violent crime. In the US, it has been pretty well proven that states that have relatively unrestrictive firearms laws have lower rates of violent crime than those that have strong prohibitions. In those that have changed their laws from restrictive to relatively non-restrictive, crime has dropped notably. The fact is that most people do not wish to hurt anyone, and having the means to do so at their disposal does not change that. Those that are evil and do wish to use guns to hurt people... those are the people that have them already, regardless of laws, as supplied via the black market. I am certainly not saying that people in any other country should change anything. That is for you and your countrymen and women to decide. I'm just answering your question. And it is nice to " hear " from you again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2003 Report Share Posted June 14, 2003 > By giving pause to those who would use them for evil? The UK has a high > rate of " hot " burglary, which is burglary with people in the home. That > is so because the people at home do not scare the burglar. In the US, > 90% of burglaries are not " hot. " In the US, criminals cite armed > " victims " as their biggest fear-- more so than the police, who are not > going to be present when the criminal attacks. and as a result, there are fewer burglaries -- they do home invasion robberies instead. That way the bad guys already have their guns out and the victims don't have time to get theirs. > The US stull has higher murder rates much higher, and most of them are done with guns. Your focus is on the ability to use firearms for self-defense. That ability is quite impaired in many of us. My aim is terrible! You don't want people like me attempting to defend ourselves with guns. Too many innocent bystanders would get killed. And so would we, because the bad guys would be shooting too, and they are less likely to miss. Ride the Music AndyTiedye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2003 Report Share Posted June 14, 2003 AndyTiedye wrote: > and as a result, there are fewer burglaries -- they do home invasion > robberies instead. That way the bad guys already have their guns out > and the victims don't have time to get theirs. That's a red herring. Home invasions happen everywhere, and they happen most often where the criminals have the highest chance of success. No criminal wants to encounter a victim that can resist him. It's like you're saying that it is better to make it as easy as possible for the criminals, in the hope that they will not hurt you out of the goodness of their hearts. Criminals aren't known for the goodness of their hearts. BTW, home invasions are, in fact, part of what is meant by " hot " burglaries. I pay attention to the world press; I have read about some really awful and violent home invasions outside of the US too. The fact remains that regardless of the method a robber uses, he would rather face a defenseless victim than one that has a chance to fight back. >> The US stull has higher murder rates > > much higher, and most of them are done with guns. That does not mean that availability of guns is the cause. Guns were more available in the 1950s than they are now (you could get them mail order, with no background checks at all), and the murder rates were a lot lower. Murder is caused by murderous people, who naturally choose the most efficient tool possible. Getting rid of the guns does not get rid of the murders-- it just switches them to another kind of weapon. And a gun ban would not do that, because the crooks can get anything illegally... just like they get drugs that are illegal. Demand causes supply, legal or not. A gun ban creates a dynamic where the law abiding will be disarmed, but the people that we really want to be unarmed the most will still keep (and use) their (unlawful) arms. The murder rate in the US is largely concentrated to blighted inner city neighborhoods. If you exclude the gang murders (mostly of other gang members) in the inner cities, the US has murder rates lower than Canada. This gang violence is not because of guns... it is a function of many things, including the fact that the US has a higher proportion of minorities than the UK, Canada, or Australia. Those minorities have historically not been treated well (recall how the blacks got here), leading to disenfranchisement, economic malaise, desparation, and crime. There is nothing more dangerous than the person that thinks he has nothing left to lose, and in the inner cities, many, if not the majority, of minority youths think there is no future for them. > Your focus is on the ability to use firearms for self-defense. That > ability is quite impaired in many of us. My aim is terrible! But the crook that might break in does not know that. It benefits you that he does not know that. > You > don't want people like me attempting to defend ourselves with guns. > Too many innocent bystanders would get killed. Perhaps. That is something you know about you more than I ever could. However, firearms training is available, and highly recommended. I have taken it, and you really realize that it is best to do anything you can to avoid using lethal force. If you were considering getting a gun for defense, I would recommend practicing until you were competent at a second-nature level, which will allow you to keep your shooting ability under the terror of a lethal encounter. That is what training is all about. Crooks don't train... we can. That is our edge, if we choose to take it. That is why shootings involving the police have almost always the same outcome, with the police on top. > And so would we, > because the bad guys would be shooting too, and they are less likely > to miss. Criminals are notoriously horrible shots. They're only likely to hit something if they are at contact range-- where most encounters occur. Look, I am not saying that you should have a gun-- if you do not think you would be safe with one, you probably are right. You know your limits better than anyone. I am just saying that banning them is not going to make the crime go away, and in each case where it has been tried, it has made the problem worse by making it easier for the crook to victimize people. Gun bans are a knee-jerk response to violent crime, and they seem to make sense on the surface, but violent crime is much, much more complex than that. Complex problems can't be fixed with simplistic solutions. I do not think that anyone really thinks that banning guns is going to take the violent intentions away from the criminals. All of the murderers that are committing those gun murders will still be angry, violent, have a disregard for others' lives, and be very dangerous, even if all guns suddenly disappeared one day. The problem of violence would remain. Finding out why that hatred, that disregard for human life, is there, and taking steps to fix the problem at its root, is the only thing that is going to work. That is what I am saying. I'm in favor of fixing the problem, which is that there are people that think it is okay to kill others, rather than trying to mask the symptom. It is very much like me suggesting finding out why an autistic child is screaming, and fixing that, rather than simply trying to get rid of the behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2003 Report Share Posted June 14, 2003 At 12:06 PM 6/14/03 -0700, AndyTiedye wrote: > >> The US stull has higher murder rates > >much higher, and most of them are done with guns. Here's something I find interesting: According to the National Organization for Rare Disorders in the U.S. (NORD) (http://www.rarediseases.org/) a rare disesase is defined as any disorder that affects 200,000 or fewer people in the United States. According to the National Center for Health Statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/) in 1999 a total of 28,874 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. These injuries are further broken down as 57.5% suicide and 37.5% homicide. (The remaining 5% is divided between unintentional and undetermined intent in a ratio of 3:1.) So the number of firearm homicides in the United States was about 10,828 people. The average of the firearms deaths per year in the U.S. *DUE TO HOMICIDE* between 1991 and 1999 (a period of relatively high firearm crime as shown on the chart here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm) is 15,425. It takes 13 years of firearm homicides to reach a number high enough to no longer be defined as a " rare disorder. " How many people know what scleroderma is? 300,000 Americans have it - twenty times as many people as fall victim to gun homicide in one year. A person with scleroderma has an expected average life expectancy of about five years - a great tragedy when you consider that this is not an " old person's disease " but something that typically appears in people aged thirty and younger. (Actual life expectancy per patient depends on which form of scleroderma the patient has contracted. Some die as quickly as a year after diagnosis while some live long lives. Five years is the average of all forms.) Why is there more concern about firearm homicides than about scleroderma? Both are complex illnesses - the former social, the latter medical - with no cure known at this time. Yet the attention and money goes towards curing firearm homicides even though so many more people are dying from scleroderma. Sparrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 first, if i am not missing something, in this case, liberals actually applies to people who want firearms restricted. so really, they are not liberal at all. i must have missed something, because this does not make sense. then: .....Why is there more concern about firearm homicides than about scleroderma? Both are complex illnesses - the former social, the latter medical - with no cure known at this time. Yet the attention and money goes towards curing firearm homicides even though so many more people are dying from scleroderma. ..... i guess the rellies and people who are injured in firearms crimes and accidents are not happy. Â i kind of accept that being human, i am likely to die of a disease at some stage, but it rankles with me that some people would blow me away without a qualm, or even do it for kicks. Â disease is different. its not personal. its not the same at all really. Â you cant legislate against a disease, and firearm deaths are mostly preventable. no firearm. no death by shooting. Â i think when you are considering firearms, you also need to consider people who are injured and whose lives are wrecked. Â there are an awful lot of those. Â the figures about the states with less restrictive firearms having a lower rate of firearm death are interesting. Â maybe those states have less restrictive laws because they had less firearm crime to start with. Â there could be a lot of reasons. Â a good article would investigate those. i can't see what the fuss is about, regarding licences for firearms. Â people have to be licenced to drive a car. Â criminals can and do drive a car, even after they have lost their licences. Â i have not heard that offered as a reason to deregulate car ownership. Â nor have i heard anyone suggest that people should not have to demonstrate competance before they drive. __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 gprobertson@... wrote: > first, if i am not missing something, in this case, liberals actually > applies to people who want firearms restricted. so really, they are > not liberal at all. i must have missed something, because this does > not make sense. I have noticed that " liberal " seems to mean different things in other countries. In the US, " liberal " refers to a handful of beliefs that are referred to as left-wing. The Democratic party is the mainstream party that is more liberal. Many hardcore leftwingers think that the Democrats are too centrist, and support other parties, like the Green party. Liberals in America typically support higher taxes, higher social spending, more governmental regulation of most things, including industry and business, more environmental regulations, more restrictions on firearms, more abortion rights, separation of church and state, political correctness, et cetera. Some of those things, like abortion rights, separation of church and state, are things I favor. Others are not. > you cant legislate against a disease, and firearm deaths > are mostly preventable. no firearm. no death by shooting. That is the root of the problem. Legislating against a firearm does not result in " no firearm " any more than legislating against cocaine results in no cocaine. Creating a law against owning something only affects the law-abiding. There will always be a black market to supply the criminals with whatever illegal things they want. > i think > when you are considering firearms, you also need to consider people > who are injured and whose lives are wrecked. there are an awful lot > of those. In the US, there are annually less than 1400 deaths because of firearm accidents. The majority of gun-related incidents are intentional, committed by some very bad people. Even if we could make guns disappear, those people would be just as bad as they are now. The problem would not be solved. > the figures about the states with less restrictive firearms having a > lower rate of firearm death are interesting. maybe those states have > less restrictive laws because they had less firearm crime to start > with. there could be a lot of reasons. a good article would > investigate those. There has been an entire book on that subject. Lott's " More Guns, Less Crime. " The people that want to ban guns have been trying to find the flaws in his research, and it has held up to even the harshest peer review. In 1987, Florida tried something that was very bold. They decided to start issuing permits to carry concealed handguns to anyone that passed the safety training class and had no felony convictions on his or her record. The state was witnessing a rise in murder and violent crime, and this was an experimental way to deal with it. In the years following, Florida had its violent crime rate decrease, and the media pundits who said that Florida would turn from the Sunshine State into the Gunshine State were wrong. That turned out so well in Florida that 29 more states, in the next eight or so years, followed Florida's lead, and passed laws requiring the issuance of concealed handgun permits to anyone that had no felony record and passed whatever other requirements the state thought necessary. What happened in Florida has been repeated many times since then. For one thing, it was discovered that concealed weapon permit holders were several times more law abiding than the general populace-- even more than the police in some cases. It was very, very rare that a concealed weapon permit holder would be arrested for any firearms-related charge. Simply, the people that would get the permit to do it legally were not the ones that were misusing guns. The bad guys did not apply for permits, of course; they mostly had felony records, and merely possessing a firearm, let alone carrying one, is illegal for a felon anyway. They just continued to unlawfully possess, carry, and use their guns, same as always. > i can't see what the fuss is about, regarding licences for firearms. > people have to be licenced to drive a car. criminals can and do > drive a car, even after they have lost their licences. i have not > heard that offered as a reason to deregulate car ownership. nor have > i heard anyone suggest that people should not have to demonstrate > competance before they drive. > > __________________________________________________________________ > McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive > protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! > http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 > > > Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! > http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 I forgot to address the last part of this message. gprobertson@... wrote: > i can't see what the fuss is about, regarding licences for firearms. There are a few reasons for this. First, in the United States, driving a car is a privilege. Keeping and bearing arms is a right, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. When you require a license for something, it is a privilege. I am not in favor of regulating things that are protected rights. It is not just the right to keep and bear arms that is being routinely ignored. Most of the Bill of Rights is being seriously impinged by the government. If we as a group really want to get rid of a right that is protected in the Bill of Rights, let's get together and amend the Bill of Rights in the proscribed Constitutional manner... don't just ignore the Bill of Rights and pretend it does not say what it says. Imagine if a license were required to speak your mind... if you criticized your country's leader verbally to your friend, or in an email, you could be arrested for not having a license to speak freely. In the US, the right to free speech is also a protected right. Rights never require licenses to exercise. > people have to be licenced to drive a car. criminals can and do > drive a car, even after they have lost their licences. i have not > heard that offered as a reason to deregulate car ownership. nor have > i heard anyone suggest that people should not have to demonstrate > competance before they drive. No one is trying to ban cars. There are politicians that want to ban guns. If it is established that you have to take a test and get a license before owning a gun, it is easy for the people that are trying to ban guns to propose one " reasonable " addition to the licensing procedure after another. In time, as the requirements build up, the license becomes quite impossible to obtain. Establishing that licenses are necessary to own something or do something makes it very easy for the government to ban that thing without actually banning it. They can and do claim that each incremental step is just a reasonable step to make us all more safe, when their intent is clearly to create a de facto ban. It is hard for pro-gun politicians to oppose minor, " common sense " measures that are " all about safety, not banning guns, " when in fact they are all about banning guns gradually. Incrementalism has been the way of the gun banners for decades. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books in America, and this is increasing all the time. The anti-gun people have at times stated explicitly that this is their strategy, and it has been working where more overt bans have failed for lack of popular support. This is why many people oppose licensing requirements. It is not that anyone opposes gun training-- most gun owners are very much in favor of training. It is that some people are using licensing as a way to apply a ban without having to say that is what they are doing. I have undergone firearms training, and I can tell you that every person that has a gun should take the classes. It really lets you know that this is a huge responsibility, and that you really are better off getting out of a nasty situation in any other way than violence. In addition, you learn how to safely handle a firearm, like keeping the finger off the trigger until the gun is on target and ready to shoot (which is ALWAYS violated in the movies). It is very valuable for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 > AndyTiedye wrote: > > > and as a result, there are fewer burglaries -- they do home invasion > > robberies instead. That way the bad guys already have their guns out > > and the victims don't have time to get theirs. > > That's a red herring. Home invasions happen everywhere, and they happen > most often where the criminals have the highest chance of success. No > criminal wants to encounter a victim that can resist him. It's like > you're saying that it is better to make it as easy as possible for the > criminals, in the hope that they will not hurt you out of the goodness > of their hearts. No, what I am saying is that it is an arms race. Today, no self-respecting American bad guy would ply his trade without a gun. So what good is it if I have one? It would just become another gun for the bad guys to use after they steal it from me. You have to assume that they get to make the first move. If you go pointing your gun at everyone who looks at you funny, then *you* become a criminal. So what good is a gun in your pocket when they've got one pointed at you? > a gun ban ....is something I never advocated. I am willing to leave the second amendment alone if they'll leave the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution intact. Regrettably, the regime has other ideas. > Those minorities have > historically not been treated well (recall how the blacks got here), > leading to disenfranchisement, economic malaise, desparation, and > crime. There is nothing more dangerous than the person that thinks he > has nothing left to lose, and in the inner cities, many, if not the > majority, of minority youths think there is no future for them. Gee, you are beginning to sound like a liberal now :^) Would you agree that improving the schools is the best way to break the cycle? > > Your focus is on the ability to use firearms for self-defense. That > > ability is quite impaired in many of us. My aim is terrible! > > But the crook that might break in does not know that. It benefits you > that he does not know that. maybe, maybe not. If he thinks there is the slightest chance that my nervous twitching is actually me going for a gun, he'll shoot me dead. > > You don't want people like me attempting to defend ourselves with guns. > > Too many innocent bystanders would get killed. > > Perhaps. That is something you know about you more than I ever could. > However, firearms training is available, and highly recommended. I have > taken it, and you really realize that it is best to do anything you can > to avoid using lethal force. If you were considering getting a gun for > defense, I would recommend practicing until you were competent at a > second-nature level, which will allow you to keep your shooting ability > under the terror of a lethal encounter. I DON'T WANT shooting someone dead to ever become second-nature for me. The fact that it has become so for so many people IS the problem. " I am not a warrior, I am an engineer! " (Miles O'Brien, Deep Space 9) I am also a liberal pacifist who has been mugged, and is still a liberal pacifist! (me) Ride the Music AndyTiedye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 At 06:32 AM 6/15/03 -0400, gprobertson@... wrote: >i kind of accept that being human, i am likely to die of a disease >at some stage, but it rankles with me that some people would blow >me away without a qualm, or even do it for kicks. One of the problems (there are many!) I have with the way firarms statistics are collected is that the " homicide " category does not differentiate between different kinds of homicide. So there is no way to tell how many of those people were criminals shot by police officers in the line of duty, how many were gang members killed during gang warfare and so on. The average, law-abiding citizen has a far greater chance of dying from a disease, even a rare disease, than of being shot to death. >i can't see what the fuss is about, regarding licences for firearms. Â >people have to be licenced to drive a car. Most of the fuss is not so much about licensing as it is about maintaining a database of firearms owners. I know that the USENET theory is that the first person to use the name of Hitler loses a debate, but I can't resist pointing out that one of the first things Hitler did when he was elected was to require firearms owners to register. Then he took away the Jews' guns. Then he took away everyone else's guns. We all know what he did afterwards. A database of firearms owners makes it easy for a government to disarm the law-abiding citizens. Disarming the population makes it easier for a dictatorship to take hold. The founding fathers of the U.S.A. wanted citizens to own firearms because they knew that an armed populace is a buffer against a tyrannical government. Sparrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 At 05:05 AM 6/15/03 -0700, Klein wrote: >The majority of gun-related incidents are intentional, >committed by some very bad people. The majority of gun-related incidents in the U.S. are intentional but the people committing them are not necessarily bad - 57.5% of gun deaths are suicides. I don't have enough information to comment on whether the suicide rate would drop were guns not readily available or not. Not all of the 37.5% of gun deaths that are homicides were committed by bad people, either, since all intentional gun deaths are included in that statistic, including police officers killing criminals who are caught in the middle of committing crimes. But yes, 95% of gun deaths are intentional. Current statistics show only 3% of firearms deaths as accidental. Sparrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 > At 05:05 AM 6/15/03 -0700, Klein wrote: > >The majority of gun-related incidents are intentional, > >committed by some very bad people. > > The majority of gun-related incidents in the U.S. are intentional but the > people committing them are not necessarily bad - 57.5% of gun deaths are > suicides. I don't have enough information to comment on whether the suicide > rate would drop were guns not readily available or not. There are also many sad accidental shootings. If people really want to own guns, which they have a right to do, I wish there was a way to make sure that they keep them in a safe place, out of the reach of children. There have been too many sad stories of children shooting other chidren with guns found lying around. Children can certainly be taught not to touch guns, but there was an experiment done that involved children who had been taught " if you see a gun, leave it alone and go tell a grownup. " Then these children, who had been taught this (and if you asked them what they would do if they found a gun, they would say " leave it alone and tell a grownup " ) were left alone in a room where a gun was hidden in a toybox. They found the gun, and each of them picked it up and played with it. Children are curious. My own grandfather, when he was a kid, shot another boy with a gun that he *thought* was unloaded. If people want to own guns, they should make sure that these guns are safely out of the reach of children. Iris Gray, Puff, Calli and Munchkin The man gave a shrug which indicated that, although the world did indeed have many problems, this was one of them that was not his. -- (Terry Pratchett, Soul Music) Personal website: http://victoria.tc.ca/~rainbow/ Toastmasters website: http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/Bb/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 At 06:46 PM 6/15/03 -0700, Iris M. Gray wrote: >There are also many sad accidental shootings. An average of 866 people die per year due to accidental shootings. That's ..0003% of the population. >If people really want to own >guns, which they have a right to do, I wish there was a way to make sure >that they keep them in a safe place, out of the reach of children. There is. I wish more parents cared enough about their children to do so. >There >have been too many sad stories of children shooting other chidren with >guns found lying around. While I agree that even one story is too many stories, each case gets blown up by anti-gun lobbyists because innocent child shootings naturally tug at most people's heartstrings. >Children can certainly be taught not to touch >guns, but there was an experiment done that involved children who had been >taught " if you see a gun, leave it alone and go tell a grownup. " Then >these children, who had been taught this (and if you asked them what they >would do if they found a gun, they would say " leave it alone and tell a >grownup " ) were left alone in a room where a gun was hidden in a toybox. >They found the gun, and each of them picked it up and played with it. If I, as a child, find a gun in a toybox, I'm going to assume it's a toy. What numbfuck of a parent puts their gun in their child's toy box?!?! >Children are curious. My own grandfather, when he was a kid, shot another >boy with a gun that he *thought* was unloaded. If people want to own guns, >they should make sure that these guns are safely out of the reach of >children. Well, so long as people keep their children out of my home, they're all safe from mine. :-) Sparrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 > At 06:46 PM 6/15/03 -0700, Iris M. Gray wrote: > > >There are also many sad accidental shootings. > > An average of 866 people die per year due to accidental shootings. That's > .0003% of the population. It may be a small percentage, but even one person is one person too many, in my opinion. Iris Gray, Puff, Calli and Munchkin The man gave a shrug which indicated that, although the world did indeed have many problems, this was one of them that was not his. -- (Terry Pratchett, Soul Music) Personal website: http://victoria.tc.ca/~rainbow/ Toastmasters website: http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/Bb/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 > > An average of 866 people die per year due to accidental shootings. > That's > > .0003% of the population. > > It may be a small percentage, but even one person is one person too > many, > in my opinion. When you consider that guns are used successfully for self defense over two million times a year, that's a pretty good ratio. Doctors performing surgery would be green with envy to have a success-to-failure rate like that. --Parrish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 At 11:24 PM 6/15/03 -0400, Parrish S. Knight wrote: >When you consider that guns are used successfully for self defense over >two million times a year, that's a pretty good ratio. Doctors >performing surgery would be green with envy to have a >success-to-failure rate like that. That, of course, reminds me of this: Each year 155,000 Americans die from medical malpractice.* That's over 500% more than die from all firearms-related causes combined! * Source: Harvard Medical Study, 1992. Number of physicians in the US: 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171. (Statistics from the U.S. Dept. of Health) Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000. Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups): 1,500. Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188. (Statistics from the U.S. Dept. of Health) Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one doctor. Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand! *Note: As a public health measure, the statistics on lawyers were withheld for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical help .... thereby perpetuating the cycle of death and violence. (For anyone who wans't sure, the idea of banning doctors is a joke but the statistics used in this joke are real.) Sparrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 At 08:17 PM 6/15/03 -0700, Iris M. Gray wrote: > > >> At 06:46 PM 6/15/03 -0700, Iris M. Gray wrote: >> >> >There are also many sad accidental shootings. >> >> An average of 866 people die per year due to accidental shootings. That's >> .0003% of the population. > >It may be a small percentage, but even one person is one person too many, >in my opinion. Oh, I agree completely. So we have to get rid of swimming pools and cars! Too many children drown in swimming pools and die in car accidents every year! Sparrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 > > > >It may be a small percentage, but even one person is one person too many, > >in my opinion. > Oh, I agree completely. So we have to get rid of swimming pools and > cars! Too many children drown in swimming pools and die in car > accidents every year! No, we have to make sure that people who own and/or use cars and swimming pools use them safely, just like we have to make sure that people who own and use guns use them safely. Iris Gray, Puff, Calli and Munchkin The man gave a shrug which indicated that, although the world did indeed have many problems, this was one of them that was not his. -- (Terry Pratchett, Soul Music) Personal website: http://victoria.tc.ca/~rainbow/ Toastmasters website: http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/Bb/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 At 08:45 PM 6/15/03 -0700, Iris M. Gray wrote: >No, we have to make sure that people who own and/or use cars and swimming >pools use them safely, just like we have to make sure that people who own >and use guns use them safely. The vast majority of people who legally own and use guns *do* use them safely. What would you suggest that's not already being done? Sparrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 > the USENET theory is that the > first person to use the name of Hitler loses a debate This was generally known as " Godwin's Law " . It was effectively rescinded by the Patriot Act. It is hoped that the resulting increase in Internet traffic will be sufficient to revive the telecommunications industry. Ride the Music AndyTiedye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2003 Report Share Posted June 15, 2003 > The vast majority of people who legally own and use guns *do* use them > safely. What would you suggest that's not already being done? If people are dying from anything -- be it car accidents, swimming pool accidents, or gun accidents -- then something needs to be done. I know almost nothing about guns, and I do not know what kinds of programs there are in the United States to educate gun owners or what kinds of safety devices are available. Obviously some people will be careless no matter what kinds of safety programs or devices are available, just like some people are careless when they drive. There are laws in place to punish careless drivers. Are there any to punish careless gun owners? Iris Gray, Puff, Calli and Munchkin The man gave a shrug which indicated that, although the world did indeed have many problems, this was one of them that was not his. -- (Terry Pratchett, Soul Music) Personal website: http://victoria.tc.ca/~rainbow/ Toastmasters website: http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/Bb/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.