georgerussia

Yes - and we should try to lower it, despite the full understanding that there always be SOME crime. "Less free" would be more accurate. It will also make "less free" only those who own guns. For me it wouldn't have any negative effect, pretty much as prohibition for private persons to own nuclear rockets unlikely has any effect on you. And regarding "not being free", this is fine with me too. Those who want to see how a absolutely free society (libertarian ideal) works, have an option to visit Somali, and see it themselves. No rules, no taxes, no courts, no questions asked. Not necessary. As far as I see, Europe does not have soldiers on every street corners, or masses of armed individuals, and somehow they're not experiencing the same number of shooting sprees like here. You and I have obviously different opinion about what it means to be free. Mine does not include gun ownership at all. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, I did. You just didn't like the answer. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It will start at that point. It's the first step in right direction. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Your post describes a good implementation of government plan. However, unlike air, there is more than one plan available, and the quality-availability-cost triangle is a constrain on a specific plan, not on a whole system. So yes, free healthcare may be rationed, or may be lower quality (for example, a cast instead of surgery for a broken leg, weight loss pills and diet advice instead of liposuction, glasses instead of contact lens and so on), or both. Indeed, if the government is able to provide the same quality on the same availability but cheaper, this means private industry indeed screwed up. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's why we need ONE authority to mandate the minimum coverage, and not fifty different authorities. It would be unrealistic to see the costs actually going down, but even stopping the pace they increase would be good enough. Medicare with its 0.9% increase per year looks much better here than private industry which maintained steady 5% increase per year for last ten years, while kicking out patients who became too expensive. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So you're admitting that implementing the best way to fight crime suggested by JohnRich (to go after the criminals) would definitely not be enough? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So how we supposed to go after people like Cho, who only became criminals when they used their purchased guns for the first (and last) time? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If crime had gone down only in D.C., then it would be reasonable to find a D.C.-specific reason for that. But since the crime went down pretty much nationwide, it would be quite a stretch to praise D.C. gun laws for that. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, my preference is to provide another cost-savvy option (public plan), which covers only essentials and does not cover shit like massages, chiropractic or "Christian healing" * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That is in theory. But in reality what you are choosing is usually the least worst in your situation (unless you manage the health insurance company). At least during my five years in U.S. and dealing with three different insurance companies and five group plans it was always the same - a choice between a cheap plan which covers nothing, and really expensive plan which covers everything including probably dick enhancements too. Health insurance company has no interest in you personally as well. The only thing they have interest is your money, and their goal is to sell you as much as possible and provide as little as possible in services. And they don't care about the costs either - the average premiums doubled in last ten years, and they can get away with it because you have very little choice anyway. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This seems to be incorrect. Christian values agreed with already existing laws, not vice versa. Also could you please name a couple of laws we live with which _came_ from Christian values (and which are not plain silly)? Being responsible for yourself and your action has nothing to do with Christian values. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, for the industry itself it is definitely not fault - it is the situation they created, and greatly benefiting from. Indeed. This is one of the reasons much more regulation is needed. The health insurers basically created this situation themselves by throwing people out of plans when they became too expensive. "Pre-existing condition" is good to get short-time profits (which seems to be something most businesses are concentrated nowadays), and will lead to failure in long term. The second part was created by those opposing mandatory insurance coverage for everyone (and I wonder how would you reasonably fix the "go ER and do not pay" problem without requiring mandatory coverage). Even in this case it is the same, just the threshold is higher. Basically once you paid your deductible for a specific year, you're getting free treatment for the rest of the year, and the treatment cost is no longer an issue. *** He was talking about life and fiscal choices in general. You spending your money on you is the best way to get a good deal for what you want. Allowing me to pick your insurance plan (or car or house) and pay for it with someone else's money is assanine. That was his point. My point was that when you picked up the insurance plan, you're not spending your money on yourself. You're spending your money on others, and others money on yourself. This is just the way insurance works. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You are not even funny. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, if you also mention that homicide rates seem to go down pretty much nationwide (for example, San Francisco" has 98 homicides in 2007, 99 in 2008 and 42 in 2009), then it is indeed a coincidence. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Looks like the current state of health insurance combines the worst of those two points - unless you have a high deductible HSA policy, you're basically spend your money on others (when you don't get care), and spending others money on you (when you do). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It's kinda strange, as the only SC orders I can find are related to real-time streaming, and none mentioned YouTube. Let's wait for Wed though. Also in my opinion those lawyers who requested the block on behalf of their clients made more harm than good, as now much more people would be paying attention to the trial trying to understand what exactly this Jesus fan club tried to hide. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So are you suggesting that Europe has less absent fathers than USA (and Brazil has more than USA, accordingly)? Well, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth as "Good Book" says. Why should I consider interests of gun owners if they do not consider mine? None of those links compares situation in different countries, making it useless for our purpose. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I do not see how it is relevant. Welfare and free social services in Europe are generally more available than in USA (i.e. even the poorest countries of Eastern Europe provide free healthcare), so it should affect crime rate in a similar way in both cases. The number of single parents is likely to be similar as well. The take-home pay in Europe is generally smaller than in U.S. (higher taxes). I do not see any valid points there if we apply the same criteria to both cases. Which basically means that banning gun ownership will have no drawbacks to myself and my family, but would greatly reduce a chance for yet another to-be crazy shooter like Cho or Jing Hua Wu to obtain guns. You do see the difference between "there are no such cases" and "I remember ... no single case", don't you? Nevertheless, I was corrected since that, and admitted it. This is indeed true, as in those four cases none of them used a gun as a gun (i.e. fired it) - so they might have it uncharged or broken, it would work the same way. Again, I did not say it was never a case - just none of those four cases referenced above. Indeed, you have to do better than that. You'd need to clarify those issues which are different between U.S. and Europe. Welfare definitely does not count here. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Yes, that's what you think. And I disagree with that, and believe the role of gun ownership is much more significant there. No, my argument was that gun ownership did not look beneficial for me, because at maximum 4 out of 44 school shootings during last ten years were stopped by an armed private individual (I'm being generous here, as only two cases can be really considered "being stopped"; in two others the best you can guess is that further murders were prevented, but it gonna be just a guess). "All or none" is typically a pro-gun argument, so you probably confused me with someone else. Neither has anything to do with cultural issues, and I have no idea what "societal issues" is - sound very abstract to me. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This phrase makes little sense to me unless you meant "agree" instead of "read". Same as I read your posts, but not necessary agree with them. Your "doesn't make much" sounds like excuse, and begs the question like "how much would you consider significant"? However it indeed makes a case if you take the population and population density into account. The fact is that there WERE sprees as well, committed by legitimately owned weapons, and this led to discussions and proposed gun law changes. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The way I view it, the stats indeed support that. Even you acknowledged that the gun crime rate is lower in Europe - you just claimed that it is because of the "culture difference", and not because of guns. Gunman kills 14 in Swiss assembly. Didn't you heard about this one? It was the major reason of discussing changes in gun laws in Switzerland. Shooting Spree at Swiss Islamic Center. Note that "the man used his military weapon and ammunition, according to the police statement" * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Nope, I only acknowledge that there is no direct evidence available so far, but based on comparison with different countries I make a conclusion that dramatically restricting gun availability and ownership indeed lowers violent crime, especially spree-type crimes. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This snippet is very important if you think beyond NRA mantra. I do not know a country which completely bans private gun ownership - collection and hunting rifles are privately owned in most countries in Europe, including Ukraine and Russia. The number of such owners, however, and the restrictions imposed on them make it pretty much a gun ban. And despite NRA attempts, I still see more gun restrictions in the future. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

"like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Which is what I said. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So what? This would not be the first time the Constitution is being amended. But it may not be even necessary. What it basically says according to Heller is that some people (and the government can restrict who) can own firearms (and the government can restrict what) in a way permitted by the government (i.e. not necessary carrying). Which is very similar to what Russian weapon law says. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *