georgerussia

So how exactly this is relevant to the post you replied? It requires zero experience with guns to compare the numbers of shootings in USA versus Europe, which serves as a proof that gun ban works to reduce gun crime. Of course, Ron would claim it does not work at all, since the number of gun crimes Europe is not zero, but for any reasonable person a 10x reduction in the number of crimes means that the ban works. It also requires zero experience with guns to see that only few of those school shootings were stopped by an armed average Joe with a gun. That was the main point of my post you replied, and I do not see how your personal gun experience could be relevant there. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Why? Such a request typically comes from someone who cannot or does not want discuss the posts, and would like to discuss the poster instead. And just out of curiosity - I listed three items in the post you initially replied to. What kind of background you're looking for regarding those three items? Ability to search Internet or read Wikipedia? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Always happened so far :) Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays, whatever you prefer :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The fun is about to begin! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Very clever and informative post, full of facts and references. This is exactly what I mean when I say you're no different from Brady guys. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This means that you cannot see or touch your God, right? Not all light is invisible, and even those which are, can be detected. So if your God is truly invisible, it cannot be light. What kind of power? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

A theist can be just someone who believes in a god (or gods). This does not mean Christian or Jewish god; may be as well abstract superforce which initially created the Universe and then forgot about it. It doesn't matter yet if you think this god set some rules or not or whether there is a reward after death, you can be theist even if you do not believe in the life after death. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

A short summary so far: 1. Despite some gun owner claims about "plenty" of cases when an armed average Joe stopped a school shooting, the total number of references provided so far was 4 (four). Only two of those cases would qualify as shooting was actually stopped, two others don't. Four out of 45 school shootings during last ten years does not sound impressive at all. The only case it describes when a gun owner actually shoot the attacker (i.e. used a gun) happened in Israel. 2. Apparently some gun owners (Ron notably) tend to believe than if anti-gun laws do not prevent 100% of gun crime, then those laws are useless, and should be lifted. Somehow they do not want to consider in a similar way other "anti" laws, banning a specific behavior like DUI or rape. Using their logic, it is obvious the laws against rape or DUI "do not work" - there are still rapes and drunk drivers - so those laws should be repealed as well. 3. There seems to be little or even no difference between gun nuts and anti-gun nuts (aka Brady). Same arguments, some logic (actually lack of). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Dude, you did not provide a single link in at least last three posts at all. And nothing you provided could even be considered a reference. Same as if I mention Marx, it will not be a reference as well. Nor did I say that they would not be able to drive far away, nor you seem to understand the difference between driving with an illegal gun and driving with a legal propane tank. I'm not the one who claimed here that he "provided facts and data that proved I am wrong". You said it more than once, and when I asked you to show all those facts and data, you're trying to turn the question back instead? So far as I see it, gun nuts are not different from Brady types at all, and they definitely deserve each others. That's my opinion, which is based on personal experience - I actually lived in some of those countries for over 20 years. And unlike you I do not claim my opinion to be facts. Dude, so far you have never shown me being wrong, you only bragging about it. And read my post again, you're now arguing with your interpretation of my words, which is just silly. *sigh* this becomes boring. What is your point here? Anyone who has a website discussing suicide or massacre, should be immediately arrested? I suggest you practice your reading first, and then you may understand the difference between what I wrote, and what you're writing here. Then we might talk. Have a nice day. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So, just to repeat, what you offer solution to: Unfortunately too many individuals have abused this right by obtaining medical service and not paying for it, therefore forcing other individuals to pay for their services through increased premiums and decreased services. Sorry, but others have rights too, and they do not want to pay for someone else getting free healthcare. And unless you can guarantee that when you need a major medical service you will be able to pay for it timely and in full, you'd be expecting others to pay for your healthcare. They have rights not to do it. You either completely forgot what we discussed, as No, this will only slash insurer expenses, but they are not required to pass those savings to you. They may as well prefer to keep the premiums, and pack a larger profit themselves. As GeorgiaDon described, that's exactly what happened in Georgia following the "tort reform" there. To have it lowering costs, the insurer profit has to be restricted as well, so they would have to pass those savings to doctors and hospitals, and doctor and hospitals profit should be restricted, so they would have to pass those savings to consumers. And, of course, it does not help with the problem above. This is good idea, and the current bill addresses it already. I do not see how would this be a solution for the described problem. In fact, the (4) is one of the roots of the problem - people, who think they're invincible so they do not need insurance. Then they got into ER, do not pay, and live without insurance for the rest of their life as they now have a pre-existing condition which nobody wants to cover. None of your 1-4 addresses that, and in fact (4) promotes it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So what is your solution? Please be realistic, and specific, and concentrate on implementation, not on theories. (as a common example, "tort reform" is not specific). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I don't understand what you said. Did you say that you ARE able to afford a 100K bill surgery right now, or that you WOULD be able to afford it in some idealistic conditions, which do not exist right now, and will likely never exist? Well, it is also because none of them is required to treat everyone no matter whether they are able to pay! Did you consider that? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Sorry, sir, you can be whoever you want, but do not expect Congress to pass a law which would be suited exclusively for you. You may consider yourself whatever you want, but your vote worth as much as the other guy's vote. Unfortunately too many individuals have abused this right by obtaining medical service and not paying for it, therefore forcing other individuals to pay for their services through increased premiums and decreased services. Sorry, but others have rights too, and they do not want to pay for someone else getting free healthcare. And unless you can guarantee that when you need a major medical service you will be able to pay for it timely and in full, you'd be expecting others to pay for your healthcare. They have rights not to do it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If you need appendix removal, are you gonna pay cash too? If you get into car accident (which may be your fault), and need MRI and brain surgery, are you gonna pay cash too? If you get cancer, are you gonna pay cash for your treatment? Those things can happen to ANYONE, no matter how good shape you're in, or how healthy lifestyle you're living. So are you going to pay cash for all this (and having no insurance you'd have to pay hospital rates, which are higher), and can you do it timely, and not like someone here offered "$20 a month"? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Good - you just explained why health insurance should be mandatory for everyone, while car insurance may not. You know, this is a 300M people country, and you're just one of them. Expecting every law to be good for you personally is kinda naive. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

For the purpose of theism/atheism it is irrelevant WHY you do not believe or believe in God. Anyone who does not believe in a supernatural deity is atheist, and the reasons why they do not believe does not matter. From all what you said it seems like you're theist. If you do not believe in a supernatural deity, you'd be atheist, but it seems like this is not your case. Then the question is, do you change your behavior because of possible existence of a deity? For example, you can avoid premarital sex because there is a probability may be deity who will punish you for that, and in this case I'd say you're technically a theist. But if your behavior is not affected by possible deity existence, then you're technically atheist. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Probably there is some language disconnection, but I was taught that what you say or write is just opinion, not data. It may be based on some data, in which case it is your interpretation of data. Only when you point out to the information source you used, it may be considered data. Now let's look what kind of "data" you have provided in this thread: 1. Congress has NO authority to mandate that I buy anything. This is definitely not data. No explanation why you think so, no external references, no quotes, just your statement. Now to the question why do you think so: 2. Because I've read the Constitution.. This is not data again, this is again your opinion. You never pointed out any particular article, nor explained why exactly you think so. You also never explained why your interpretation contradicts with the one from Congress/Senate lawyers, as the bill went through numerical reviews, voted by Congress and Senate and has support from President - apparently what you're saying is that you know more about Constitution than lawyers, senators, congressmen and President together. At the same time you're not even a lawyer, so the obvious question is how much your interpretation weights. But no data either. 3. So, you're saying you DIDN'T know what you were talking about when you mentioned my body and private property, upthread. No data at all. 4. Well, since you obviously know better, prove to me where Congress has the authority. Now you're ASKING for data, not providing it. And finally a quote above. Indeed, quite the same amount of "data" as in the gun thread! No wonder. Thank you for your time. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So basically everyone has "access" to CHL, unless their behavior, or diminished capabilities prevent so. And the prevention criteria is the same for everywhere. To bring it back to the context discussed, this would mean that every country should have a right to own nuclear weapons, unless their behavior, or diminished capabilities prevent so (and the same criteria apply for everyone). Do such devices exist? My knowledge of nuclear weapons is limited to university and a few books, but what I remember that nuclear weapons do not scale down well, and it is extremely difficult to make for example a small nuclear bullet or a projectile. Unless there was some breakthrough, this may be a non-existing threat. Another issue would be why don't they use biological weapons for the same purpose? When a target country is very far away, the risk of contamination is not significant, and virtually every country which does medical research has some kind of bacteriologic weapons. If such devices exist, then it would be reasonable to restrict available nuclear weapons to only large ballistic missiles, would it be fine then? Oh, much more. Nobody really cares for Bin Laden except U.S., and he is not that much a threat himself. The organization is. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You stated something (in this case that Congress does not have authority to pass the bill), and did not provide any facts to support your position. When asked to stand behind your position, you went to typical "I'm saying that; prove I'm wrong" reply. So yes, it looks pretty much the same as the gun thread. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Nope. You are the one claiming they do not, despite the fact the bill is about to be passed, and obviously went through a bunch of lawyers. So it's your job to prove your point. So far we only have your words. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It took me a little longer to find any other articles about it - and they all pointed to the same source, which doesn't sound very credible, and provides very little information. How many millions? Depends on a gun, and what you consider "decent proficiency". And I won't believe everyone became proficient in less than 2 hours. Then you might want to talk to Ron instead of me. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, I am not saying that. I'm saying that your "I've read the Constitution" argument is very weak, and you're not the first using it to "prove" something which is not true. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And so? Some people read the Constitution, and then claim we don't have to pay income tax, or that it doesn't allow ordinary citizens to bear arms. And their arguments (and often credentials) sound solid - but apparently courts disagree with them. Your interpretation of Constitution may also be wrong. I believe in "innocent until proven guilty". If you're saying the government violated the Constitution, then prove it by legal means, and I'll agree with you. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Maybe you think this answered by question, but it does not. It was not about hope or anything. It was about purpose of life. The purpose you're saying the human life has is only relevant now, in current conditions. Same purpose makes no sense for Adam and Eve, and this means that according to bible, people were originally created without purpose for their perpetual life. Because there is no Heaven. Makes me certain I won't be there. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

How'd you know they do not? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *