Government to seizes bank accounts in Cyprus

[Yorkshire pud]

Don't be too smug, if we were to ship the gang bangers in our inner cities over to you, our gun violence rates would be barely measurable while they would find a way to get guns and yours would soar.

We have a multi-generational underclass problem in our inner cities, not a gun problem.  And it came into existence in the very places our Lib/Leftists hold and have held unchallenged power for decades.  Look what they've done, what they've created.  I'm very skeptical of Obama and his allies spreading their same policies everywhere, and having positive results.

Don't run away with the idea we don't have gang violence, we do. But (I know you'll find this incredible) we've discovered arming everyone to the teeth won't have a positive effect on it. It isn't smugness; it's highlighting the mismatch of professing that having universal firearm ownership makes it a safer place..When statistically you have more chance of being killed if you're armed yourself. I bet the NRA don't tell you that?


Oh, don't quote Switzerland: They have a civilian militia that is theoretically called to stand in with the army. They have strict regulations and protocols in place to..But then if you had their rules and regs you's probably say it was a leftie/ liberal/ commie/ pinko/ gay/ lesbian/ liberal/ Obamacare/ liberal/ Ruski attempt to 'take ur guuurns' (As Alex asshole might have it)

[Pragmier]

It's IN the legislation. Don't believe me ? Do the research for yourself. I had posted a pdf of the entire law on another website and the death panel section is in there.


http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2012/09/former-obama-adviser-steven-rattner-called-for-death-panels-in-nyt-op-ed/


www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/28/guess-what-obamas-having-a-hard-time-finding-anyone-to-serve-on-that-so-called-death-panel/

Rattner is a former administration official associated with the auto bailouts, and I don't know that he had anything to do with the actual legislation mentioned. But let's take the suggestion he made of rationing end of life care because of it's disproportionate expense. Isn't rationing of care part of 'letting the market decide' ? Instead of some panel, the poor would simply not be able to afford it and there's your allocation of resources. Wouldn't the free market take a similar role as the 'death panel'?

[Yorkshire pud]

Rattner is a former administration official associated with the auto bailouts, and I don't know that he had anything to do with the actual legislation mentioned. But let's take the suggestion he made of rationing end of life care because of it's disproportionate expense. Isn't rationing of care part of 'letting the market decide' ? Instead of some panel, the poor would simply not be able to afford it and there's your allocation of resources. Wouldn't the free market take a similar role as the 'death panel'?

Yes, but no, but yes, but no, but yes, but  no, but...It's only a death panel if the government (particularly the dems) is 'deciding'..If the insurance companies make the call it's simply 'Tough luck asshole, you didn't earn enough (Or inherit enough) to be rich enough, so now you pay the price douchbag' or as you say 'letting the market decide'

[Juan]

The difference, of course, is that if the insurance company decides it will not pay for something, one has other options - begging the doctor to perform the surgery on credit, getting money from relatives, etc.  The "death panel" decides whether or not you get the care at all.

[Marc.Knight]

It is quite simple really.  For every class of firearm or ammunition that the government wants to prohibit, they need to make sure that every criminal in every state turns in their's first.  Once the government does this, and provides absolute proof, then law-abiding can follow suit.

[Yorkshire pud]

It is quite simple really.  For every class of firearm or ammunition that the government wants to prohibit, they need to make sure that every criminal in every state turns in their's first.  Once the government does this, and provides absolute proof, then law-abiding can follow suit.

And how do you legislate for 'law abiding' weapons being used by law abiding people for nefarious purposes? Or In states where only a driving licence is needed to purchase one, with no psychological test to see if they're mentally stable enough to hold a firearm let alone have one with ammunition in it.

[Marc.Knight]

And how do you legislate for 'law abiding' weapons being used by law abiding people for nefarious purposes? Or In states where only a driving licence is needed to purchase one, with no psychological test to see if they're mentally stable enough to hold a firearm let alone have one with ammunition in it.

#1.  If people use weapons for nefarious purposes then by definition they are not law-abiding.

#2.  Mental stability and testing: send a thanks to the ACLU for preventing this.

[Yorkshire pud]

#1.  If people use weapons for nefarious purposes then by definition they are not law-abiding.

#2.  Mental stability and testing: send a thanks to the ACLU for preventing this.

So you may be surprised then that carrying a weapon is more likely to get the user killed than not? Law abiding or not.

[Marc.Knight]

So you may be surprised then that carrying a weapon is more likely to get the user killed than not? Law abiding or not.

Please provide references to the source of your statistic.

[Yorkshire pud]

Please provide references to the source of your statistic.

One of several after a quick google..Not all the same source


http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/01/09/2009-university-study-gun-owners-4-46-times-more-likely-to-be-shot-in-an-assault-than-those-not-in-possession/

[onan]

Please provide references to the source of your statistic.

He is right Mark. But it isn't all that simple of a statement to make. Most male suicides are by guns. Most from guns owned by family members or victim.


What the NRA preaches is that there is a real and significant danger by intruders. And the only way to protect oneself is with a fire arm. And that is so subjective it is hard to argue.


Where the "guns are dangerous" argument has validity is very few are capable (under duress) to handle a weapon effectively. And that is difficult to ascertain because most gun owner wannabes will let their ego get in the way of an objective assessment.

[Yorkshire pud]

He is right Mark. But it isn't all that simple of a statement to make. Most male suicides are by guns. Most from guns owned by family members or victim.


What the NRA preaches is that there is a real and significant danger by intruders. And the only way to protect oneself is with a fire arm. And that is so subjective it is hard to argue.


Where the "guns are dangerous" argument has validity is very few are capable (under duress) to handle a weapon effectively. And that is difficult to ascertain because most gun owner wannabes will let their ego get in the way of an objective assessment.

Exactly Onan. The reason soldiers (and some police officers, depending on the local protocols) usually hit the target and don't freak out before or during (but do sometimes afterwards) a firefight is because they go through training and more training..If all someone has done is fire at paper targets in an indoor range and have no concept let alone experience of CQB (Close quarter battle) they'll likely do more harm than good. Their 'enemy' has the advantage of surprise, often pre planning, often a loaded weapon with one in the breach and frequently motivation however misguided.


The sardonic sense of humour that soldiers have: a Brit Royal marine was asked in a TV report over here what he felt when he shot one of the Taliban (he was a sniper) "A bit of a recoil" was his reply.