Shooting in CO at Batman premiere

[greg775]

I read a good article in USA Today today about all the medical bills of the survivors of the attack. Some of the hospitals are not charging a penny to the uninsured, which is nice. Some people however and going to be buried in bills the rest of their lives. This is another reason it might be nice to have socialized medical care. These people's lives are ruined because of some guy who painted his hair orange and bought a lot of guns to shoot at innocent people who in some cases have no insurance. Read the article. It will sadden you that these good people are now in trouble financially.

Edited August 3, 2012 by greg775

[Y2HH]

I read a good article in USA Today today about all the medical bills of the survivors of the attack. Some of the hospitals are not charging a penny to the uninsured, which is nice. Some people however and going to be buried in bills the rest of their lives. This is another reason it might be nice to have socialized medical care. These people's lives are ruined because of some guy who painted his hair orange and bought a lot of guns to shoot at innocent people who in some cases have no insurance. Read the article. It will sadden you that these good people are now in trouble financially.

 

We don't have socialized medical care, and we won't anytime soon, if ever, despite countless stories like this one.

[Real]

MKUltra

[Jake]

We don't have socialized medical care, and we won't anytime soon, if ever, despite countless stories like this one.

 

We'd all have to want to pay more taxes first.

[Balta1701]

We'd all have to want to pay more taxes first.

(No we wouldn't, but that's another argument).

[kapkomet]

We'd all have to want to pay more taxes first.

 

 

And we are, duh, thank you Justice Roberts for defining that for us.

[Jake]

I would rather pay what I pay for insurance in taxes than trust a private insurance company to look out for my well-being or ever have my best interests in mind.

[kapkomet]

I would rather pay what I pay for insurance in taxes than trust a private insurance company to look out for my well-being or ever have my best interests in mind.

 

You would rather have the government decide how you live? That's exactly what you are saying. It was never supposed to be the role of government to control your very life and death decisions. It is very unfortunate that too many people cannot deipher the line between you deciding what you want to do with your life and your government deciding it for you.

[Balta1701]

You would rather have the government decide how you live? That's exactly what you are saying. It was never supposed to be the role of government to control your very life and death decisions. It is very unfortunate that too many people cannot deipher the line between you deciding what you want to do with your life and your government deciding it for you.

(Wanting to comment, but pointing out that I'd reply but this is not the thread to drag this up is the appropriate thing to do here.)

[kapkomet]

(Wanting to comment, but pointing out that I'd reply but this is not the thread to drag this up is the appropriate thing to do here.)

 

Sure. I understand. But there is a basic question of what the government's role really is. I know, and we all know, that you think the private sector is so corrupted that it can't possibly make any rational decisions, and we all know that I think it is not the role of government to make decisions for us. Forget the cost arguements - solve it another way. This goes with gun arguments, etc.

[Balta1701]

Sure. I understand. But there is a basic question of what the government's role really is. I know, and we all know, that you think the private sector is so corrupted that it can't possibly make any rational decisions, and we all know that I think it is not the role of government to make decisions for us. Forget the cost arguements - solve it another way. This goes with gun arguments, etc.

"Forget the cost of having military assault rifles available to people" in a thread about a case where the only reason why only 15 or so people died was because the 100 round cartridge jammed. Where people in the next room were wounded because the rounds were so powerful they penetrated the wall.

[kapkomet]

"Forget the cost of having military assault rifles available to people" in a thread about a case where the only reason why only 15 or so people died was because the 100 round cartridge jammed. Where people in the next room were wounded because the rounds were so powerful they penetrated the wall.

 

 

And this is the action of one nutjob... and while there are more nutjobs, you can't change the entirety of society based upon this. But don't equate this to "health care" costs. That's not what I meant and you know it.

[Balta1701]

And this is the action of one nutjob... and while there are more nutjobs, you can't change the entirety of society based upon this. But don't equate this to "health care" costs. That's not what I meant and you know it.

Eh, you're the one who brought it back to the costs of guns.

 

If we rid every person in this country of semi-auto, military grade assault rifles, it wouldn't change society one iota, except for making massacres like this much more difficult, and vastly less lethal.

[kapkomet]

Eh, you're the one who brought it back to the costs of guns.

 

If we rid every person in this country of semi-auto, military grade assault rifles, it wouldn't change society one iota, except for making massacres like this much more difficult, and vastly less lethal.

 

I can't disagree with that. The only people who should have that is military and police. And even then, you can get some nutjob to snap off. You can't possibly stop it.

[Jake]

When my poor health makes someone money, I don't want capitalism to be the system that regulates healthcare. When insurance companies can charge as much as they want because I need to have health insurance, I'd rather have a system that won't have the incentive to do that.

 

The government may not be the best entity ever, but they don't have much of an interest in having me dead. No more than an insurance company. I'd rather healthcare be less profit driven, not more.

 

On the other issue, crazy people will kill. It's just something that will happen and not much can be done about it. Just try to make the world a good enough place that perhaps people with a predisposition for that kind of thing won't get triggered. For as all-powerful as the government is supposed to be, they don't have the ability or resources to keep illegal items out of people's hands. I don't see guns being any different, so they may as well be legal with a few due restrictions. I feel the same way about weed, steroids, and a few other things.

[Jake]

Part of me wants to have an assault rifle, but I feel like the main appeal is that it is so powerful that I shouldn't be able to have it.

[Balta1701]

I can't disagree with that. The only people who should have that is military and police. And even then, you can get some nutjob to snap off. You can't possibly stop it.

I know that. But it's not hard to make this kind of event less lethal. You go for the assault rifle for a reason. It works. It's designed to kill everything. If he walks in and starts shooting with handguns, even powerful handguns, it can do no where near the damage an assault rifle can do. The power in those rounds is ridiculous. They're designed for one shot, one kill.

 

The only reason the death toll here wasn't 2 or 3 times as high was the 100 round magazine jammed. That means to me...get rid of the 100 round magazine and it becomes less lethal.

 

Then of course there's the other issue one could raise...if a person is seeking psychological treatment, should they be able to buy multiple weapons? Clearly my answer is...that's the kind of thing you should have a background check for.

 

I know you can't stop all of them. But that isn't a reason why we should pretend we can't prevent some.

[farmteam]

Then of course there's the other issue one could raise...if a person is seeking psychological treatment, should they be able to buy multiple weapons? Clearly my answer is...that's the kind of thing you should have a background check for.

 

I think I understand the sentiment you're going for here, but this would open way too big a can of worms/be damn near impossible to implement.

[StrangeSox]

And we are, duh, thank you Justice Roberts for defining that for us.

 

90%+ of people aren't paying more taxes.

[EvilMonkey]

The government may not be the best entity ever, but they don't have much of an interest in having me dead. No more than an insurance company. I'd rather healthcare be less profit driven, not more.

In the UK, where socialized medicine rules, doctors kill patients because they cost too much to care for or sometimes simply because they need the beds. And good luck suing them for wrongful death. So it seems that the government CAN have an interest in having you dead. Now what ya gonna do?

 

The first 2 paragraphs

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/20/shock-b...ients-annually/

 

Shocking news from England today has top NHS officials indicating doctors acting in the UK government-run health program annually kill as many as 130,000 patients prematurely because of overcrowding at hospitals, medical clinics and nursing homes.

 

Professor Patrick Pullicino indicated doctors are turning to a so-called “death pathway” protocol that is essentially active euthanasia of patients, according to a London Daily Mail news report. Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Kent, made his remarks in a speech before the Royal Society of Medicine in London.

[Texsox]

In the UK, where socialized medicine rules, doctors kill patients because they cost too much to care for or sometimes simply because they need the beds. And good luck suing them for wrongful death. So it seems that the government CAN have an interest in having you dead. Now what ya gonna do?

 

The first 2 paragraphs

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/20/shock-b...ients-annually/

 

So you believe the source *and* more importantly believe we can't possibly do something better than England?

 

I believe we can do better than England. Hell, I believe we are the greatest nation on the planet and can do anything better than any other country if we try. But I'm a liberal, we're pretty crazy that way.

[Quin]

So you believe the source *and* more importantly believe we can't possibly do something better than England?

 

I believe we can do better than England. Hell, I believe we are the greatest nation on the planet and can do anything better than any other country if we try. But I'm a liberal, we're pretty crazy that way.

 

No. Liberals hate America. You're not a true liberal.

[Balta1701]

I think I understand the sentiment you're going for here, but this would open way too big a can of worms/be damn near impossible to implement.

If I go out and start buying up fertilizer, it won't be long before the FBI is at my doorstep. If I buy a 6 month supply of Claritin D, the police will pay me a visit. In both of those cases, they'd probably do a medical records check.

 

If I go out and buy 6000 rounds of ammunition, large volume magazines, semi-automatic military-style assault weapons, handguns, and full body armor, no one will know anything about it or ask any questions until I use it. Hell, I could pay cash at a gun show and make sure there's no paper trail. No one will stop and ask if I'm in the care of a mental institution or capable of making decisions about using that equipment.

 

You can't tell me that we can't do better than this.

[Texsox]

Everything we buy should be closely monitored by the government. Actually, we should receive coupons.

 

But yeah, we can do better. I just don't like the idea of the government monitoring what people buy. I realize that for some items it is in our best interest.

[farmteam]

If I go out and start buying up fertilizer, it won't be long before the FBI is at my doorstep. If I buy a 6 month supply of Claritin D, the police will pay me a visit. In both of those cases, they'd probably do a medical records check.

 

If I go out and buy 6000 rounds of ammunition, large volume magazines, semi-automatic military-style assault weapons, handguns, and full body armor, no one will know anything about it or ask any questions until I use it. Hell, I could pay cash at a gun show and make sure there's no paper trail. No one will stop and ask if I'm in the care of a mental institution or capable of making decisions about using that equipment.

 

You can't tell me that we can't do better than this.

We can do better. However, you're equating trends that (possibly) indicates dangerous/criminal behavior with a legitimate, one-time purchase of a handgun. But, more to the point, I was commenting on how broad "psychological" is and that it can mean pretty much anything, whether or not it has anything related to do with "dangerous" behavior.