georgerussia

Following this logic we should not restrict sales of anything - including grenades, land mines and cyanide - because criminals and crazy people might be able to get them anyway... whether grenade ownership is legal or not. Making guns much less available would restrict access to guns for criminals by cutting out the supply (no more straw purchases, no more illegal purchases from corrupted legitimate dealers, no more 300K stolen guns a year). And it will basically remove the chance for crazy people to get the gun The ban which is not enforced is useless. But try to get some drugs in Singapore where this ban is really enforced, and you will see how easy is it. Then why NYC, which basically disarmed law abiding citizens and left guns to the criminals, has a lower homicide rate than St. Louis, Houston or New Orleans which is supposed to be full of armed citizens? And I'm NOT very liberal, nor I "vote democrat typically". But as far as private gun ownership goes, I've made my position. 'cause we gonna shot those who are impolite! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

"Savings" is not "spending", it is basically money you move from one account to another. I do not see how this would be considered cutting spending. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Tort reform is even more difficult than pre-existing conditions. Doctors are human, and do and will make mistakes, and treating them often cost a lot of money. For example, a patient may need a transplant which would cost a fortune. Who is going to pay for that? If you limit 'pain and suffering' damages, but do not limit actual damages, i.e. doctor's insurance would have to pay for the treatment, then nothing is likely to change at all - the risk is still great. If you limit total payment, then it is not clear who will pay for the treatment, and how. As I have said before, I see no reason why insurance company would use this lessen risk to pack up more profit and keep the doctor premiums the same as before. This way such reform would reduce consumer protection, and would not lead to cost decrease - it would only benefit insurance companies. I doubt such a reform would be useful at all. And according to GeorgiaDon, this is exactly what has happened in Georgia once they passed their tort reform. I see zero incentives for insurance companies to translate lessen risk to less expenses for doctors, and even if they do it, I see zero incentives for doctors to lower their prices - most consumers do not care about it anyway, they only care about the copay. As far as I read, Newsom is not better. Regarding spendings, we have here couple of bridges repaired and roads repaved. Much better to me than starting yet another useless war. I just showed in previous post why you CANNOT just fix "one problem a time" without creating an immediate loophole which will make the problem much worse than it is now. If you just ban denying preexisting conditions and do nothing else, a lot of people who're now maintaining insurance would drop it to save money - after all, if/when they need medical help, they will apply for insurance and get it, right? - which will push insurance companies out of business very fast. The current bill is complex for a reason. This is pretty bad criteria. Senators do not care whether it is good or not, they only care about their sponsors and special interests. Medicare costs increase about 0.9% a year, while private insurance premiums increase about 10% a year, so your statement is kinda out of touch. Note that Medicare also need to pick up those who were dropped by private insurance companies as "too expensive". Well, "it shouldn't cost anything, to anyone, for any reason" is not the case with current plans. What you have is basically partially prepaid care - so it indeed cost you. I did not understand "people should have catastrophic coverage" statement. Are you saying that "everyone should be required to maintain at least catastrophic coverage", or "only catastrophic coverage should be available"? How do you define this "catastrophic coverage" - what should it cover, and with how much deductible? You do understand that you're not proposing a solution, right? It is just like a dream in style of "if everyone were responsible". However this is not possible. A lot of people are NOT responsible and you will not fix it, this is the matter of life, and it would be stupid to legislate assuming the opposite. Interesting. Using the same logic this insurance should not cover skydiving, skiing or motorcycle incidents as well - after all, why should anyone else foot a bill for someone who's jumping out of perfectly good airplane? If you stayed at home and didn't go out at winter, you wouldn't break your leg - so it's your bad choice and we should not foot the bill for it, as everyone knows that when it's winter there is ice outside, which is slippery. It all sounds good until you apply the same rules for yourself. Then it suddenly doesn't look that good. See? You _can_ do it (and so can government), but you do not want to do so. And the government does not want to do so too, and they do not see it as absolute necessary. In my opinion if you can cut 30% without life-changing efforts, you're wasting a lot of money. To me 15% is already significant overhead. For example, we cannot cut 30% because of a simple fact that 90% of our expenses are mortgage, business and kids-related (and dropping the mortgage and starting renting would make it worse, because we would lose a significant tax deduction, which - unlike 90% of available deductions - does not fade away in our income bracket). Being a certified cheapskate, I look through our budget every month, and I don't really see where else we can cut it. So no, it is not always possible. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I heard that union members do not pay Social Security as they use their own retirement system which the employer pays into, not the worker. Do you know if this is the case? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, pretty much everyone - including Republicans - agree that healthcare system needs to be fixed. They just disagree with proposed methods to fix it, so the discussion will likely continue. Even the Senate version would not be that bad if they strip out all the pork and giveaways they added there (although I consider public option "a must" to control healthcare costs - because once maintaining health insurance becomes mandatory, there would be nothing else to stop private insurers to raise the premiums). To me it looks more like he was abused by more experienced politicians, who thought they'd cut a piece for themselves, as usual. This didn't work this time, and some of them are already started backing up. Even here in liberal Bay Area - which was pretty much labor-friendly - it looks like people are slowly turning against unions, especially public unions. I would not say they _really_ overreached - it is more likely that nobody really cared in 2000-2006, being busy of recovering from dotcoms, and then being really busy to make quick bucks by buying and reselling overpriced properties. Now because of the overall situation a lot of people are paying attention to what's actually going on, which forces media to provide better coverage for the events, which in turn increases the mass activity. The problem here is that you cannot simply fix pre-existing condition by banning insurers of charging more premiums or denying coverage. This will lead to massive insurance drops, when people would only get insurance when they got sick, and drop it again once they are fine. To prevent this, you'd need to require everyone maintaining the insurance (and then you'd have to either provide insurance to poor, or exempt them from this requirement), and add penalties for non-compliance. This will lead to workarounds like getting the placeholder plan (a $5 a month plan which does not cover anything until you satisfy $10M deductible), switch to real plan when one needs coverage, and switch back after treatment. To prevent this kind of workaround, you would need to require people maintaining the health insurance plan which would cover some basics - and then you will have to set up the minimums which must be covered. At the end you'll likely end up with yet another 1,000 pages bill, which doesn't really different from what the House passed. Easier said than done. Can you realistically cut your personal budget by 30%? Yes, you can. But will you? It is not that easy. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Social Security is one of such examples. Most people have to pay it even if following circumstances: - They're so "filthy" rich that they will never even cash this government check. Nope - they have to pay Social Security tax as well. - They're smart, responsible, money-savvy and can build much larger retirement portofolio if they invest those money themselves instead of giving them to government. Nope - they still have to pay Social Security tax. - They worked hard, saved a lot and already have built a nice retirement package, so they wouldn't need Social Security. But hey - they still have to pay Social Security tax! So this is a service the government forces us to "buy". The next one is unemployment insurance, which is mandatory for wage earners in CA and maybe in other states too. Again, do Larry Ellison or Steve Jobs need unemployment insurance? Unlikely. But nobody cares - they have to pay it too. And of course there is health insurance we all already paying for. It is called "medicare", and last year we paid several thousands just for it. Again, would Bill Gates or Warren Buffet need Medicare? Very unlikely. But still they have to pay for the "service" they may never receive. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

In my opinion, the Senate version just sucks after they added all this pork there. The House version is much better, hopefully it will be taken as the base for a new bill. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is all due to liberals who try to restrict those nasty assault rifles. If only every gun owner was able to walk around with AK-47 - like in Somali - such crazy crimes would never happen! Somali is so peaceful now! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No. But it is useful to show why the number of homes is not something useful to consider when we need to get the number of gun owners. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I already agreed that hours/gun numbers are pretty much meaningless for my purpose of estimating the total number of gun owners. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Because someone that strongly agrees with the Brady idiots asked me a question about it. Next stupid question? Thank you for all the respect you show to the opponents. Don't expect any meaningful reply from me anymore. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Agree. Restricting gun ownership dramatically may be one of those new things to try * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

What is obvious? Are you saying now that you quoted my exact words? So you admit you made things up, and just have no guts to acknowledge it honestly. Fine with me this way too, however you will be treated the same way since now on. And the question was "Do you have evidence (not your thoughts) about how many gun owners report gun theft out of total thefts?" - which you conveniently skipped as it would make things obvious. Because I pay taxes which pay for law enforcement, DHS, Army and so on. Nothing is perfect, bu so far worked very well both in Europe and here. Even in gun-restrictive NYC it worked too! And you probably forgot that the majority of Americans do not own guns, so it's not just my unique position. You must be kidding. Ok, prove it. That's what current SCOTUS said, splitting at 5/4. One replaced Justice may change the whole picture. I understand why. It is the easiest way to prove that some TOOLS need to be restricted even though it is CRIMINAL who commits a crime. Why are you concentrated on a TOOL like grenade instead of CRIMINAL? (Grenades aren't standard infantry issue in U.S. Army? Interesting) Yeah? How's that working for drugs, so far? Because the key word here is "enforced", not "ban". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

to which I generally ask "so could you show us a proven way how it should be done instead"? It is always tempting to claim that the way it is done is wrong, but you would probably agree that it is not that constructive. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So you at least admitted that I did not make the claim you accused me to make. Good. So you admitted that I did not say that, and this is just your interpretation of what I supposedly say? Good. No reason to comment your interpretations either. Here is post 78, and a simple search wouldn't find even the word "common" there. So please show my post where I claimed "leaving the gun on the seat of their car' to be stolen" to be so common, or admit that you made this up. So here's the question and answer: Me: Do you have evidence (not your thoughts) about how many gun owners report gun theft out of total thefts? You: Just off the top of my head? The "black market gun dealer" that you keep bringing up springs immediately to mind. The fact that you think criminals are going to obey a gun ban and respect gun-free zones is another. The fact that you think MY gun somehow is a threat to you is yet another, and there's plenty more. So who is deflecting? I only started posting about guns pretty recently, after reading through a bunch of JohnRich "polls" and some discussion, so you indeed made pretty significant impact about it, even though you do not acknowledge it. Only when you ask a real question, and not another made-up thing like "Why am *I* supposed to protect YOU, George?". If you consider this a valid question, please point out to exact post where I said that you are supposed to protect me. Post #103 I do not see how it violates 1st amendment. For 2nd - it can be either repealed (amendments have been repealed in past), or SCOTUS can overturn Heller, saying that only militia can have weapons (no need to repeal anything this way). Wow! So after saying so much about how should we concentrate on criminals and not on tools, you're finally saying that making more TOOLS available to law abiding citizens is idiotic idea? How come??? Because if the ban is enforced, the demand will go down. No, I'm saying that unless you're trying to prove there were none, I do not see how is it relevant. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I also hope they would pay back, by implementing something like Mormon Church contribution tax. Something like 90% sounds like a nice start figure. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You mean that we didn't experience yet another terrorist attach which killed thousands, and didn't invade yet another country? And the "control" is not the proper word as was shown during healthcare bill voting. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Restricting access to items which have a high chance to be used illegally has been common practice since ancient ages. Unfortunately that's the only choice available in our imperfect world, which more or less works. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, it is not. As I said, at this moment it is my opinion versus your opinion, and I'm happy with it. You're not proving yours, so I see no reason to prove mine. I accept it as acknowledge that you're out of reasonable arguments, so you started making things up in form of question. Please point out the exact post where I said that I worry MORE about the tool than about the criminal. You made a comment about your own phrase which you attributed to me, but admitted that it does not belong to me. What should I deny here? Then why are you asking if the answer is painfully obvious? As long as YOU can keep your beloved guns, who cares about who else is affected, and how, right? Please show my post where I claimed "leaving the gun on the seat of their car' to be stolen" to be so common. Are you making things up again? I do not know who were you replying to, so I will repeat the question: "Do you have evidence (not your thoughts) about how many gun owners report gun theft out of total thefts?" No, I meant exactly what I said: I have never seen this established as a FACT. So far I only seen speculations, and conclusions made on obviously insufficient data and bogus assumptions (like that the ban should have a total immediate effect to be considered working, and since it did not - then "gun bans do not work"). So now you're saying that you know what I was thinking better than me? Isn't it kinda presumptuously from you? Well, this is very simple - there are obvious problems created in the society by the gun owners, from providing criminals with guns to turning crazy/religions and starting shooting sprees. If there are no advantages for the society which would counter those problems, then it's quite obvious that revoking the gun ownership privilege would be good for society. You quoted the piece which was related to a very specific crime. If you track it two posts back it will be obvious. Why did you feel the urgent need to change the subject, except if you had nothing to say? You already agreed that there is not possible to prove the direct correlation between gun ownership and crime rate, so restricting gun ownership would seriously decrease shooting sprees (by removing available guns), while keeping the overall crime rate the same. Sounds like a good deal to me. In an imaginable world we would of course ban shooters - like, as soon as someone starts shooting people, he dies from heart attack. Unfortunately we live in real world, and it is not possible to have a cop following each village idiot to check whether he is learning Islam or Christianity, and track his progress to the point when he actually believes that he is making the world better by shooting abortion doctors or non-Muslims (and have another cop following the first cop to make sure the first cop is not learning Islam and so on). And even at that point this is not Russia, and you have to prove intention, which may be extremely hard until he actually shoots someone. So it is easier, and painless to majority, just to restrict gun ownership. By the way, are you also comfortable with making available grenades, grenade launchers, flamethrowers or land mines? You already said it's criminal, and not tool which is a problem, and criminals may obtain illegal weapons anyway, so making those tools also available should be very innocent, right? Because the drug "ban" is not really enforced here. Do you know how much drugs gangs ship to China and Singapore, where the ban is actually enforced? It is not - but I doubt Congress would make an exception just for your gun. So I'm afraid you'd have to follow the rest. Again, why would I care? Unless you're trying to prove there were none, I do not see how is it relevant. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Every law can be considered as hindering law abiding people at some way. Unfortunately until Good Lord Jesus Christ comes back, and makes everyone perfect, making the law and enforcing it is the only way which seems to work, although not perfectly. You'd probably agree that we would have more drunk drivers on the road if all the penalty for DUI was a $100 fine, and we would have less if the penalty was being burned alive right there in the car. Sure it would be better if anyone was reasonable and didn't drive while drunk, but what else can you do? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No surprise. I know a person in Russia who wanted to put a machine gun on his old Hummer, and even made some noise when he applied for official permit for that (seriously!). Obviously the permit was not issued, but still. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, the reason I asked for the number of gun _owners_ is because gun owners vote. Houses do not vote, nor do guns, so it is hard to estimate effect on voting. So far the only numbers I have seen were 25% of adults (1997 data), and 80M, quoted anywhere without a single reference to the source. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Then show it is not? Again, it is my opinion versus yours. I indeed grasp it, but I completely disagree that TOOL should be excluded from the equation completely, which seems to be the agenda you're trying to push. My opinion is that the role of the TOOL in such crimes, while not ultimate, is significant enough to warrant further restrictions. Well, the FACTS (i.e. what happened) are like that - Cho killed those people with a GUN. You may speculate that he would kill all of them with scissors or bare hands if he didn't have a gun, but the facts are that he used a gun, and any reasonable person would acknowledge that the gun played critical role in the amount of damage he has done. I would prefer to comment something I said, not something you think I said. So if you consider this important, let's see my real post instead of paraphrase. Presence of the guns does not CAUSE crimes, but increases the DAMAGE from the crime, making it more dangerous to society. That is why guns are more restricted than hammers, even though you can kill a person with a hammer too. Why would I consider that? I do not need guns myself, and I do not see how it would make me safer. Do you have evidence of the number of gun owners that 'left it on the seat of the car' to be stolen? No, I do not have such evidence (neither I claim I have, so your question is kinda out of touch). Now could you please answer my question? You indeed claimed that regarding gun theft I'm "arguing from a WHOLE LOT of preconceived notions that just aren't true.". If you just thought I'm wrong, this wouldn't make my arguments not true - you could have only said that you do not agree with me. But since you claimed that my arguments are not true, I assumed you have facts to back it up - which seems like you do not. I have never seen this established as a FACT. So far I only seen speculations, and conclusions made on obviously insufficient data and bogus assumptions (like that the ban should have a total immediate effect to be considered working, and since it did not - then "gun bans do not work"). I was not on the fence, I just didn't really care (i.e. I did nor donate to NRA nor to Brady). And while it was quite obvious that I wouldn't join NRA as I had no plans to ever own a gun, but I definitely was not as anti-gun as I am now. Nice. It would serve a good reminder of yet another crime which hasn't been prevented by an armed gun owner! Because he would not be able to commit such a crime if he didn't have such a tool. It takes extreme dodging skills to avoid admitting the fact that it is not possible to start a shooting spree without a gun, and therefore admitting that gun plays critical role in shooting sprees. That is why we need to concentrate on making guns less available to criminals - by imposing further restrictions on gun owner community, which apparently generously provides criminals with like 300K stolen guns each year. Nope, it does. Your rights end up where they start threatening safety of others. That is exactly the reason why you cannot buy a gun in a hardware store without any paperwork, like it might have been in "good old times". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

As czar Peter the First said back in 16xx, "Russia has only two true allies - its Army and its Navy". Nothing really changed after that, and this is true for most (but not all) countries. I personally believe that a politician who is trustworthy and/or honest is not really qualified for the job in modern world. There is nothing trustworthy in politics. Everyone cheats everyone to gain something from their country - and this is exactly what the government should do. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I don't think I understood your point here. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *