georgerussia

This is an NRA-like statement which is as true as saying that "there are 290M guns for 300M U.S. population, so everyone there has a gun" You probably forgot this little Leibacher incident almost a decade back, which followed to discussing restrictions on Switzerland gun control and restrictions have been implemented? I spoke about it with my friend from Zurich - some interesting thing NRA wouldn't tell you: - There is mandatory military training for every male, which includes recurrency trainings. Only by completing this training and becoming a member of militia (with all relevant responsibilities) you'll get a gun. The guns issued are mostly rifles (pistols are only issued to officers). - Keeping and maintaining this gun is mandatory, and required by law. Basically this means one _must_ have a gun (kinda different from U.S., isn't it?). - The ammo was also issued but sealed (only to use during invasion). The recent change in laws stopped issuing ammo, and all military-issued ammo is being retrieved back. - They are not allowed to carry without a permit, which is difficult to get. - They have MUCH less guns per person than U.S. - Wiki estimates 1.5-2M total guns for a 7.5M population, comparing to U.S. 290M guns for a 300M population. There are even more restrictions imposed in 2008 by Schengen treaty. And how come that your dream TX - which is full of people with guns - still has any violent crime? All those criminals must be scared off your guns, and should all drive to NYC where they supposedly can safely rob, rape and murder unarmed population. Why then violent crime rate in Houston, TX is significantly higher than in NYC? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It is indeed wrong - yet another case where you claimed to provide something which you did not. No surprise though - I would be really shocked when at some point of time you indeed provide some data (I mean real data, not a "search it in google" phrase) instead of just empty claims that you did. I see you didn't get the POINT. The cop is there to make sure the potential gun owner carries an unloaded gun, therefore dramatically reducing the risk. You must be joking. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is pretty much true (there is nothing absolute) when the ban is enforced. Once you show me an Army grenade you bought from illegal arms leader, I'd say you have a point. A joint purchased in Singapore would work too. And I'm having fun too, those test cases become longer and longer. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Let's wait until he leans what weapons the military can use. Gonna be a lot of exciting polls like: - Yes, I support the rights of our military and citizens to carry assault weapons - No, I think our military should only use baseball bats to prevent gun violence. Disclaimer to some pro-gun people: this post is supposed to be sarcasm, I do not have access to time machine and therefore do not have any evidence that JohnRich is going to create such a poll. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There is nothing on this page which confirms that 40% robberies are committed with a gun, so I accept it as your acknowledgment that you made it up. Once the cops left, there is little risk. Dude - you said, and I quote: "They are". Quit making definitive statements if you're referring to stuff pulled out of your ass and you'll quit looking quite so much the fool. That's what happens when you quote out of context. Everyone else, however, can read the actual post and see it. And for a person who completely refuses to provide any evidence to support everything you said during the last few days (posts #89, #101, #104 where you were asked for evidence and provided nothing in return) your tone is extremely rude. Please contain yourself. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The most expensive Blue Shield individual PPO plan ($0 deductible/$25 copay) for a single 35yo male in 94085 costs $278. Kaiser equivalent (worse) for the same plan is $347 (it provides better coverage though). $672 for BS PPO? Maybe that's how your company encourages anyone to use Kaiser, but individual situation is different. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

My response to this is that this situation is much less likely to happen when the guns are restricted. No, this may happen - crazy people with guns are indeed there. I will however disagree that the proper way to handle this situation is to bring a gun into restaurant. The proper way is to make it extremely hard for such people to get guns and ammo. Looking on Europe you can see that it works - much less crime committed by gun owners who went nuts and started shooting people after getting fired or not being able to pay for college. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I'd say it would be extremely hard to get this kind of information, and even if done, its validity is still questionable. How trustworthy are criminals in jail? Probably not so. Indeed, it was Rstanley0312's opinion. I apologize for that. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

FBI crime stats. This is too vague. Please provide the reference. Well, in REAL LIFE what happened is that a lot of people have seen it, and called cops and this made news. Why not? Cops are not gonna stay there forever. Dude, we're discussing a hypothetical situation. When you gonna understand that it is not possible to prove something which MAY happen until it actually happens? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Here's where the problem starts. Basically every known religion would say that everyone else is "cult", "sect" or simply "wrong" - everyone but them of course. And of course they define the words the way to fit everyone but them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Nope. We're not talking about hardcore criminals with underground connections - we're talking about average Joes going crazy. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If the guns are restricted, he cannot get any and does not start shooting. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, this has been discussed more than once (sorry, you're not original). Basically criminals are everywhere, and in most countries people manage to somehow survive - and often have lower crime rate than U.S. - without keeping and carrying guns. Violent crime in gun-restricted NYC is less than in gun-friendly Houston/Dallas (I'm not even mentioning St. Louis or Detroit). Indeed they would. You are completely right - a criminal would have little respect just to the law which does not allow him to buy guns. What is your proposed solution for that? Mine is to physically restrict the amount of guns criminals would be able to get. It will also cover cases like Jing Hua Wu, who - being non-criminal - was able to buy a gun, and then shoot three people after being fired from his job. Such restrictions work well in Europe, as there is significantly less gun crime there. This doesn't seem to be really the case. I already asked for news reports which would support such statements, and got nothing so far. Is it a real-life scenario, and if yes, how long ago did it occur? I can counter it with at least three situations already happening when a law-abiding gun owner somehow went crazy and shot someone Now how many of such crimes happen in those countries in Europe where gun ownership is so severely restricted that a criminal could be sure there are nobody with a concealed gun? Just look on a bunch of crazy gun crimes committed during last week: Crazy Gunman shoots 20 rounds in Farm King store Macomb, Ill Sandy man arrested in Gresham club shooting Community shocked, saddened by massacre Grandfather: Money led to family shooting This is not a scenario, but a real-life news reports. Note that none of them seems to be a hardcore criminal who commits crimes for living (maybe except the first one, but it's not clear yet) - they more look like some crazy lunatics. How are you planning to prevent things like that from happening? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If I had, I would say "will do" instead of "may do". But it's not really different from your opinion that ADT sign "does wonders". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Nobody forces you to do so. No, what you give me is your personal opinion, and somehow you expect me to treat it as "information" or "fact". It is not. For exactly the same terms? Or you conveniently comparing a plan with $25 copay and no deductible versus a plan with $40 copay and $2000 deductible? Everyone can go here, enter the ZIP code (I entered 94085), the nearest effective date and two people of 35yo. The quotes I've got were $740.00 for "COPAY25" (which looks like $25 copay HMO) and $725.00 for $25/500 deductible plan. Of course, if I compare it with $40/$2000 deductible plan, I'll get a $446.00 plan, but this wouldn't be comparing apples versus apples. YOUR benefit choices only apply to you * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Because some people stand in disbelief when they understand you have no idea what those "Raiders" and "Giants" they speak about are, except that it somehow related to sports. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Depending on whether this NAS provides SSH/rsync, I'd set up SSH (with public key authentication only) and used rsync over ssh to synchronize them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Not at all. Just compare the prices for Blue Shield individual PPO and Kaiser - they're basically pretty much the same. Kaiser would provide more services for the same money (because of lower copay), while PPO provides more flexibility. Everything else, however, stays the same - costs are same, availability is the same, and quality is the same. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is incorrect assumption. No matter which of those 10 actually usable plans you choose, you'll get the same availability and quality - so this is not a price/quality/availability choice, this is "pay more now/pay less later" or "cover maternity as well" choice. Today we all have only one choice - a health care which is expensive, available and high-quality. Only limited amount of people can qualify for a (still expensive, just not for them) health care with slightly less quality and availability. Edit: an important correction - not all the plans are equally available, and at least for Blue Shield/Blue Cross switching to a HSA or lower deductible plan requires medical underwriting - so it's not like all those plans are really available for you. Here you're speculating about something which is not included in the bill or even being discussed. Of course - if we start with incorrect assumption and apply some speculation, we can easily end up like here :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, I cannot. If I go to ER, not only it would take 36 hours to get triaged for cold, but also my healthcare bill would be 5-10 times higher than if I go to a doctor directly. So it is definitely not a cheap option. What you probably mean that it is easier to fraud the ER than the doctor office by avoiding the payment - but it doesn't make it a valid option. No, rationed plans by definition do not allows patients to decide on availability, this decision is done by someone else (like government). HSA and deductibles still provide you with expensive, available and good quality healthcare. It is just the difference between "pay more now and less when you get service" versus "pay less now and more when you get service". You will still get the same quality service with the same availability with a HSA plan versus non-HSA (with probable exception of maternity, which may not be covered). Indeed, HC is messed. But it is pretty obvious now that health insurers are not going to fix it on their own. Every change in the system so far came from the government. Who you suggest people look to solve it? Isn't it the reason we actually have the government? Nobody so far has said that offering free Internet Explorer (and free Firefox, and free Safari, and free Opera, and free Chrome) lowers the consumer choice. Of course, any browser vendor would prefer their browser to be the only available, but this has nothing with consumer choice. The questioned practice you probably meant was mandatory inclusion of IE into Windows - which provided significant competitive disadvantage. Nevertheless, the choice is there, and in some European countries Firefox is already used more than IE. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Indeed - but your critique has little value unless you also tell us how would you fix it. Everyone can spot where the problems are, and everyone can blame the solution offered until they try to create their own. Myself I was pretty much pissed off on the healthcare bill (well before it passed House) until I realized that most of its content is basically brought in by a simple requirement of removing the pre-existing conditions. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And this is what we do not have now. The only available choice now is expensive, available and high-quality healthcare (unless you qualify for Medicare/whatever). I cannot choose a cheap and high-quality plan with limited availability, and I cannot choose cheap plan with good availability but with lower quality. The government has been involved in healthcare for quite a while. It even provides healthcare coverage (Medicare), it is just not available for everyone. Not necessary. As in House plan, the government would offer you a "public" government-provided plan - most likely a cheap plan with lower quality and availability which would only cover basics (no chiropractors, no boobjobs, no massages). This would not be the only plan, and you would not be required to get it - you can get any other plan (or keep your existing one). I do not see how it limits choice - by any reasonable standard it increases the choice, not limits it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

What version of the bill are you talking about? In the Senate bill the government does not cover anything (besides already existing programs). It only sets up _minimum_ standards every health insurance plan should cover. In my opinion, those standards are very reasonable, and only cover necessities. Basically it is the same as it's now with the difference the standards are set separately by states (as a result, each state has different standards, and it is very hard for insurance companies to sell across state lines), so setting uniform minimum standards seems like a benefit. In the House bill the government "public option" would cover only those things which are required. But it doesn't restrict you from getting non-government coverage. If you want more - get private insurance. Indeed, you cannot have a single healthcare _plan_ which provides inexpensive, high quality healthcare that isn't rationed. But you can have a system where multiple plans are available, and people can decide what is more important to them - price, availability or quality. At this moment they cannot do it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Do you have any references to confirm this number? This is not the case here. We're discussing the real situation, which already happened - and all the mess started exactly because too many people noticed it. It is also questionable where is the line between minimizing the visual impact and violating the law requirements. A law-abiding person in California can only open carry an unloaded gun, so a criminal doesn't even have to look. If the criminal is especially worried, he might call 911 and report "someone with a gun in a store", cops will come and check the gun to make sure it is indeed unloaded (happened as well). They are. If a cop shoots someone in a questionable situation, they'd be on a paid leave while the union-paid attorneys explain the case. For average Joe in the same situation he might spend some time in jail if he can't afford bail, and all he would get is a public defender - not exactly a match. I'm not even talking about the case where average Joe actually got wounded while shooting the robber - who is going to pay for that? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I bet this is not different from what everyone else is saying :) and I wonder whether jury of your peers would decide differently in NYC, Chicago or DC. It may do exactly the opposite "wonder" - if you have a security system, it means there is something valuable there. If this was true, no gun store would ever be robbed. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *