Omerta

Yes but next to Russia we might have the most corrupt government on the planet. At least for a developed nation. I won't speak for him commas I'm sure he has his own examples in mind, but if you'll permit I have one. Jeffrey Epstein. This man was in the some of the most deprived, and deplorable acts that a human being can do to another human. That being said comment reached the highest levels of government. The people that are supposed to be there to protect the United States, and its citizenry. They are taking advantage of their positions, and they are raping young women. When they are about to be brought to Justice, Jeffrey Epstein surprisingly commit suicide. I'm sure his ties to the clintons had nothing to do with it, but it just makes you wonder doesn't it? I can't in good conscience hand my guns over to a government that I know is corrupt on that level. Instead of bringing the rats among them to Justice, they hide the rat. Can we win as sustained where against the government? Who knows, I think we could draw it out long enough to where would just destroy our country and there would be no form of government left. Either that or we could stretch out their supply lines and security forces so far, that it would leave these corrupt politicians exposed. Once we kill all of them, the war would either end, or there would be nobody left to direct it. I think one thing nobody talks about either common is the fact that I seriously doubt the US military would be on board with their stupid plans, if anybody knows how corrupt this government is, it's a military official at a high level. We may not be able to, hell they might just kick our ass. That being said I feel a hell of a lot better with my gun than without it. Either way, it's a constitutional right, won't go anywhere for any meaningful period of time. Also I would like to leave you with this period Jim Jones killed 919 people with kool-aid. Do you really think somebody would be above poisoning gator aids and hand them out for free on school campuses?

Haha well deserved. I will get to it when I get to the office. There was a Bloomberg or Forbed article a couple years back. I've also know Japan was it's own biggest creditor much like American used to own a large portion of it's own debt through it bonds owned by citizenry. I'll get more into it in a little bit.

I'll give you a solid tip...

I was sitting in the drive-through line getting my protein shake, I don't really have time to type out the response I need. That being said, Seans smart enough to figure it out comment I obviously spends enough time on the Internet. I think hes got it. I really didn't mean it to be a d***, there just aren't a lot of ways you can explain something long form with that kind of time table. If I had more time,I would have certainly explained it.

Look man, I'm not saying this to be a dick or nothing but this is a situation where not knowing economic basics and relying on someone else who does not understand monetary economics in business especially in dynamic business policies is a bad thing and can make you look foolish to those who do. A more accurate figure is 134%. I can either tell you how that works or you can do the research on your own if you want.

In

That is incorrect.

As far as I know, none do.

Almost all countries do lol

So you're saying they have low unemployment and universal healthcare. Only one is bad, I'll let you choose lol. Also it is a short term problem. In the long term it is a good thing. Also, they have 1/3rd the population. And the scarcity for employers leads to higher paychecks which ya know...

Generally because they are more intelligent and are better at performing a cost benefit analysis. Or older and wiser. There are 330 million people in this country and counting, we can use a few less dumb people.

Fuck yes tell them that. God damn I am so tired of seeing this shit. Two dumbasses fuck and either the kid or the taxpayer suffer. It is such bullshit. Dont have kids if you cant afford them on your own. How is this not common fucking sense?

We will have to agree to disagree here. Most people who are suicidal will try multiple times and if a gun isn't present they will try other methods. I think most people that are truly suicidal will find a way to get it done. Personally I dont give a shit about suicide or people who commit suicide. My disdain for them is well documented on this site, and I dont think it needs to be rehashed here. Not all insurance is ass though. That is my point. What you are saying, or at least what I am hearing, when you say medicare for all is," Pay more for a shittier product." It is really hard to sell me on that. Patient satisfaction surveys who have medicare are also hating it. I can tell you from what I hear that Hospitals try to get people with Medicare out the door because there is no money to be made there. Medicare is paid off of how the patient feels they are treated, which if we are being fair, if you are in a hospital you are probably not in the greatest of moods. This is a true statement medicare has patient satisfaction as a methodology for deciding how much to pay a hospital for their services. How insane is that? There is a reason hospitals just want to do the minimum required and get them out the door and down the road to the next hospital. Imagine what is going to happen to doctors and hospitals if their reimbursement for services is on the whim of a patient. Not good. "You cant throw money at things" might be the battle-cry of the right, but you have to admit they are right. This result would be shocking, even if we had not spent $21.5 trillion “fighting poverty” over the past 50 years. Here’s why. Between 1967 and 2012, U.S. real GDP (RGDP) per capita (in 4Q2013 dollars) increased by 127.3%, from $23,706 to $52,809. In other words, to stay out of poverty in 1967, the two adults in a typical family of four had to capture 26.9% of their family’s proportionate share of RGDP (i.e., average RGDP per capita, times four). To accomplish the same thing in 2012, they only had to pull in 12.1% of their family’s share of RGDP. And yet, fewer people were able to manage this in 2012 than in 1967. https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2014/03/19/the-war-on-poverty-wasnt-a-failure-it-was-a-catastrophe/#1dc3dbbf6f49 I am not going to make you the argument that Republicans are right often, but they are right here. I use this so often because it seems like such a simple solution doesnt it? There is a lack of money here, lets throw money at it (21.5 Trillion) to balance it out. It fails. If throwing money at a problem works then how the hell did all that money from taxes and put into supplemental programs create our current economic climate of wealth distribution at the top. This is insane when you think about it. Telling the government to throw money at a problem is never a fix. WE are fixing a symptom and not the cause, but to many people are out for the rich guys blood. They want to see him murdered in taxes, that is how you excite a base. If we did all the things I said we would save money for better healthcare. I dont see the need for shitty insurance at that point. I dont think poor people cause insulin prices to go up. I also dont think I did either so it shouldn't come off my back. See what I am saying? You are taking money from people who did not create the problem so you can throw more money at it. If we didnt create the problem, how are we the solution. Fix the problem at its source, and dont just take the easy option of taking from people who worked their ass off to get where they are only to fail at fixing it. Medicare sucks. Medicare tells you it sucks, the patients tell you it sucks, doctors and hospitals say it sucks, I dont know why we ignore all that and tout it as a good thing. It simply isn't. WE are not looking at attacking the SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM, we are looking at ways to make the rich guy pay for the poor guy who isnt his responsibility. When something is free people use it for menial shit. Instead of going to the doctor for a sore throat, buy some cepacol and move on. It is not so much the waiting lines for me though. It really is the standard of care. I dont want to see some tired doctor and overworked staff at the end of the day who are just waiting for their shift to be over because they have been getting inundated with bullshit all day. Then think about how overworked a system will become. Do you think that when they start taking this out on doctors that more people are going to sign up to go to school for the better part of two decades, to become overworked and make less? I doubt it. The real problem here is America is never going to go full liberal and if thats the case you will never solve the real problem because people are to affixed on the wrong thing. As to the lack of empathy. Thats fair. As far as owing society...I dont OWE them anything. People in society owe themselves. It is not up to me to help you and change your life, that is up to you. This whole, "The bootstraps thing is outdated" is horseshit. I did it. I have given society 83 field jobs as of yesterday, over 100K in taxes, 4 office jobs, and a reliable service that everyone needs. My job is done. Those 83 people earn every cent of over 1,000,000 dollars I put into the economy every year. AS far as I am concerned if you havent done more than that dont tell me that I owe society anything. I have given society enough, and yet its idea is to tax me more. Get fucked. Or at least until you can prove to me it wont be a fiasco like our social nets now. AS to funding. You are wrong. The money that colleges get is funded in large part by big pharma. Gasp, those evil people doing research and funding it to create new medicine. https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/04/big-pharma-pays-universities-for-most-medical-research-in-u-s-today/ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2475454 Private sector pays for most of it https://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-community/health-care-policy/article/who-pays-medical-research https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50 The materials of CRISPR is cheap. The two decades of research is not. IF we all pay for healthcare now, why would I be interested in still paying for healthcare for everyone and having my insurance get worse. DO you understand how this is a tough sell? The taxpayer picks up ER visits for people who cant pay anyway, as well as a host of other services. The only thing we dont really cover right now is mental health, which we should take more seriously. I got 70 percent because that is the number that people cite when talking about the 50's and the American dream and so on. WE should NEVER make a guy pay more than half of his wealth through government sanctioned theft. I dont CARE for what reason. I also think you would be surprised how much philanthropy pays for. And the last statement is my point. We handed the penal system over to the government from the states and BAM its privatized anyway. So if that is the end game why not fix the real problem and leave our corrupt government out of it? There is no good to come from a corrupt government interfering in anything.

That last line wasn't a shot, just illustrating how crazy I would have to be.

So you are correct. 11,000 people die a year thanks to homicides committed by firearms. There are more gun deaths but gun control inst going to stop someone from committing suicide imo. If its not a gun it will be a rope, razor blade, pills or whatever. Medicare sucks isnt really a huge generalization. It has some good parts but overall is ass. Patient satisfaction scores are dog shit for them. Hospitals hate it, doctors hate it, there are a few good things, mainly it costs the patient nothing. Outside of that it is a shit insurance program. I think you misinterpreted or I did not explain my position. I think universal healthcare being funded through taxes is not really looking at the problem and just throwing money at it. If you want to solve the problem instead of the symptoms you quickly realize you dont need a dollar bill, you need a pen. Throwing money at something NEVER works. If the war on poverty can not be solved by throwing money at it then healthcare sure as hell wont get it done. You really dont need it though. You could TRIM SO MUCH FAT off the healthcare system with looking at the problem and not the outcome but that is not a good sound bite. What sounds better to a poor voting base? "It is not your fault, it is this big evil kabal over here making sure you stay poor, and I dont want you to do anything, you keep being you. We will make sure that rich Kabal pays for it in blood." OR "There are problems with healthcare that are going to change. We need to come up with a plan that is going to make patents on drugs harder to attain for generations, and create a 10 year recovery of assets period, we are going to reduce bureaucracy and paperwork, and use federal grant money as leverage to get these things done, or even talk about taking accreditation's away from hospitals to ensure they comply with a comprehensive healthcare reform." Its easier to pander to poor people by absolving them of responsibility for anything and saying it is not their fault there is an evil unseen hand. And a huge reason the middle class is shrinking is because of liberal policies. Or I should say liberal fixes to conservative policies. I think we can all agree that Republicans funnel wealth to the top. Then the do-gooding liberal comes along and passes tax reform to help the poor, and they take those taxes from the middle class because the top has so many loopholes they dont pay taxes anyway. So both parties are terrible for the middle class. The Republicans are evil and the Democrats are incompetent. I dont mind revamping healthcare. What I dont want is my family to suffer from a standpoint of the standard of care we receive. I make more than enough to survive whatever taxes they want to throw or whatever recession is coming so the money issue is not important to me what it is the standard of care. If Macy or Gabe come down with something I dont want to be fucking around waiting 3 days to get into see a doctor because now there are 5000 people ahead of me on our hand dandy dog shit system everybody thought they wanted. If my wife were to find out she had breast cancer, I dont want to sit here and have her waiting in line with a bunch of people who are ahead of her and are so because of my dime. Nope. My responsibility is to my family, not yours or anyone elses. If every one else succeeds that is great too, but asking me to pay for others so we can all have shitty healthcare sounds like an ass plan to me. Here is an example. Everyone in my wife's family that was a woman has died of ovarian cancer before 55. My wife is 35. 2 years ago when we started to get a bit of wealth we decided this was a problem we could deal with ahead of time. So thanks to my bad ass private insurance we were able to have her genetically tested and see what the likelihood of her getting those cancers were by decoding the genome. It was expensive, and worth it. She has under a 10% chance of getting either and if she were we know exactly what she would have so treatment could commence immediately. So that brings us to why America has an outstanding system. CRISPR is something we are pioneering and nobody is even close. All those wonderful universal healthcare systems around the world are years behind us in technology. Of the top 15 most advanced hospitals on the planet 11 are in the US. CRISPR is going to treat things are the DNA level. Theoretically meaning that all of the conditions people have from birth or congenital defects will be fixed because we will modify the DNA. Think about that. We could see a literal wholesale destruction of diseases to children and guarantee health from birth. And the US will have it long before anyone else. What funds this ? The government, hell no. They take a triage approach. There are limited resources and we are going to use them for cases they deem the most worthy, they wont try out the fancy new fangled technology because it is too much of an expense. FUCK THAT. As to public services, that is extreme. I mean I am for doing away with toll roads anyway, fire departments are closing down in mass, and people hate cops and people are leaving the job and are seeing record low recruitment because people see one 10 bad cops a year and treat them all like assholes. So we may soon find out what it looks like. I am for taxes paying for this because there are no other systems in place. Insurance covers these things. If I get in a car accident and you hit me, your insurance pays, if not mine pays. This is how it should work. It should not be up to the guy 9 cars behind me to pay for it. If I do it at work the employer should pay for it unless it is my stupidity and then my personal insurance should because it is my fault. The person who pays should be the person at fault, at least in my mind that is what makes sense. I should not ask you to pay for something you didn't do. If you didn't swill 30 2 liters and ate 16 pizzas a day for 30 years and then washing it down with some scotch and Vicodin and then smoke a pack of cigarettes you shouldn't pay for it. I own nobody anything that I did not cause to happen. I should not have to subsidize poor people if they have the same opportunities as everyone else. Now they dont always and that is sad, something should be done there. The top 1% is 400,000. You really think we should tax that guy until he makes 120,000 (70%). That is fucking criminal imo. I just dont see why you guys trust the government so much. This is the same government that implemented mass incarceration, they privatized the prison systems, created PAC's and Super PAC's, has toppled regimes for oil creating generational instability and hatred towards us, Have created the war on drugs to drive up cocaine prices so they could make a profit through drugs and illegals arms deals, the same government that uses our social security fund to fund wars, basically the same government that has created the worst problems we have. Oh and by the way somehow lets epstein get killed on suicide watch, after he warns he has been "roughed up" lets his ass get suicided to protect the top. These are the people you want me to trust with my family's healthcare and give my guns too? Have you lost your fucking mind.

So this is just me, I wont speak for anyone else here or anywhere else. And my response will be for America only, as other country's aren"t my business. So the reason people say it is a right and healthcare is not is fairly simple in my opinion. It is in the "Bill of RIGHTS." I didnt capitalize it to be a dick, but those first 10 are guaranteed to every American citizen in this country thanks to the following amendment where we figured out black people and women are not inferior people. I capitalized it because it is a lot easier to call it a right than it is to say," It is a right afforded to me by the constitution of The United States." So people just call it a right. And not just guns but, speech, rights for court and so on. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights explicitly stating that healthcare is guaranteed to all citizens or we would have it. I also think that people who dont support medicare for all get lumped into "anti-healthcare." Call it psychopathy or whatever you want but I care very little of others. So the appeal to me better nature with," What about your fellow man?" does not work for me. The benefit to that is that I am also not for holding others back because I think they deserve what they get or whatever the narrative is. Here is what I do know, Medicare sucks. This is well documented, so why do you think I would want to put my family on that shit ? That is nuts. I laid out what I would do for healthcare and it had nothing to do with universal healthcare, raising taxes, or disbanding private insurance. If this country can come up with a way that isnt some dumbed down marxist drivel of," lets take all the things from the bourgeoisie and give it all back to the proletariat" nonsense. I am all for people having healthcare, but it is not going to come at the expense of me or my family. I am not going to be satisfied with some horseshit medicare for all. I also think that almost all of us really dont think about human rights. If we are talking about rights as they pertain to humans as a whole, how many people really think about that? I mean most people only think of rights that pertain to them or a group they care about. This conversation for example. Why cant it be a right to have guns and healthcare? Why does one group want to take the rights to abortion, and the abortion group wants to take guns? The truth is we care very little about the rights of others just so long as those we value are preserved. We dont ever stop to think about humanity as a whole, and what rights should be guaranteed to use as human beings ? We only see what is right in front of us. So I am not really pro-gun anti-healthcare, but I am not some rube who is going to jump on the liberal bandwagon with some cheap appeal to my empathy with a shit plan and a whole lot of propaganda. Not going to happen. I dont think immigrants are going to steal my job, and I dont think it is my job to take care of someone else. A far as why do I believe it is our rights to have guns. Well first and foremost I dont believe we all should. I believe people like me should. What I mean by that is this. I have no domestic violence charges, I have no felonies, no mental illness, extensive training on using the weapon, and have no criminal history other than a DUI in 2009 and a parking ticket for parking in a bank parking lot 4 years ago. I am no danger to anyone who is not posing a threat to me and my family so I should not be penalized for the action of a few people. I also think that this "Mass shooting Problem" is extremely disproportionate to the actual problem. Seriously less than 500 people a year is such a small percentage that I think we should be dedicating a bit more outrage to things that kill more people like Diarrhea, measles, nutritional deficiencies, drowning, falls, fires, and syphilis. As fr as if guns are a moral right or a constitutional one, I think that it is both. I think it is a moral right because I dont have anymore right to take something from you than you do from me if I have harmed nobody. Abortion kills 500,000 viable fetus's a year, and it is never a mans right to have a say in anything woman. Why do people who dont own guns get to mandate something that kills less that 10,000? Why do we have to worry about taking anyone's rights. Why dont people agree to leave each other alone? i have shot nobody or done anything violent or shown signs of slipping into the abyss why does someone get to take something that brings joy to someone. It just doesn't make sense to me that people get to tell people what they can and cant have if they are not hurting anyone. You also cant attribute to me something that my gun has not decided to do. The Constitution is pretty damn clear on this. "Shall not be infringed" kind of says all that needs to be said and their are no specific restrictions on it. Now as to what you said earlier there is a distinction between AR's and ICBM's. In the military we have something called discriminatory fire. Or target discrimination. A bomb is an indiscriminate killer. An AR is fired with intent of specificity on a particular person. meaning that person has to look at that person and kill them. A bomb has way more potential for destruction, and it is an indiscriminate killer. That is a massive difference imo. This was longer than I intended but this is about as thorough as I can get.

His point still stands. When you say why cant we have tanks you're going to an extreme to illustrate a middle of the road point. Assault weapons, still not a thing, are slightly more dangerous than handguns, a lot more dangerous than bolt actions, and a lot less dangerous than pipe bombs or bazookas. That is the equivalent of me saying well cars kill more than people than guns let's ban them. Or force everyone to take public transportation and ban everything that isnt a hybrid to lower our carbon footprint. A bus can do the same thing as a car, why do we need them. Its lazy and a bad and meaningless place to start an argument.

Yes it is a right. And you can own all of those things. Permit required of course.

Didn't you say we should ban guns? I swear we went around this.

I think that is inaccurate. Most people who do these have AT MINIMUM major depression. Even the study you linked said that.

1st and foremost thank you for the articles. The 2nd one you reference to, the PDF file, was far and away the best. It was Interesting, because they were talking about mass murder and mass shootings in particular. There are several takeaways, but the most important one was the fact that these things are extremely rare, thus making them hard to predict and model. The 2nd salient point is that it is usually done by children who have experienced traumatic events, have isolation is traits, or have parents who are not present in their lives. I think all of these things are extremely important, they are definitely contributing factors to what is happening. The FBI and CIA studies that they referenced were also extremely interestings. If you have not read the whole thing I certainly would recommend it. As to the 3rd when you referenced comment was still a good article. I just don't think it has as much substance as the 2nd. That being said an interesting thing they brought up as that 59% of people who commit mass shootings should have been banned from buying them in the 1st place. I have said before that I am all for universal background checks, if you could cut out 60% of mass shootings, this problem becomes even smaller. The 1st article though, was pure dog shit. It cited very little data, used Twitter as a source, didn't reference any material that you can look back to in say there was a streamlined and efficient methodology. It was certainly not a scholarly work, it was an opinion piece. The author keeps saying that doctors agree with this comment doctors agree with that, but they only talk till 1 or 2 doctors from what I saw. That is an extremely small sample size to then extrapolate out to the rest of the community. Especially when you followed up with that 2nd article that you had from the American psychological association. There was a brilliant piece of writing, the 1st article would have done well to cite that period

I meant assault. God damn auto correct. Most people who own assault rifles dont. The percentage of people who own assault rifles are less than those who have mental health issue. I am interested in that study so I will read it shortly. Those shootings all have people in common too is my point. I won't comment on the study you cited until I have read it.

I can tell you why it works other places, but not here. Or at least my theory. Culture. We are not the same as far as national identity, customs, mannerisms, or personality. One of the reasons you have to be nuts to fight the US is because we love violence. We always have and always will. That is why combat sports are GINGANTIC here and not so much other places. Guns are a part of who we are. We won our freedom with them. We settled the west with them. We have shaped our country and the world with them. We have an attachment to them that cant really be found elsewhere. By you're logic we would ban the burka because the rest of the world doesn't have draconian laws against women. Why cant they just get on board and be part of this whole thing? It is their culture. We have ours and they have theirs. Or we would tell France to quit letting people marry dead people, but we don't, or shouldn't anyway. The point is the US is uniquely different from the rest of the world and I see no reason to conform for something that kills less than 500 people a year. It is an overreaction to take those things from millions of people who have done noth in ng wrong. And I really couldn't disagree more with how you interpret the second amendment but that is a different conversation but a few quick things. What about foreign occupation? I can legally buy body armor. It is far from obselete for our own government. Tactics beat technology. Any field commander will tell you that. We wouldn't win but we could make it so bloody and drawn out it would be pointless. Iraq was far from technological but those IED's still work. Suicide bombing still worked. These are the least technological th h in ngs in the world but massively effective. Its All about tactics.

I'm fairly sure that is the one I have read, I have not seen the one Thanatos is talking about.

Can you cite this? I have only found things citing the correlation between and depressants and coming off and mass shootings. I have not found one saying the opposite, I would like to read it. I know Lanza, The Urora shooter, and the parkland kid ( I think but not as sure as the other two) were on them. That said there are more people who owns all rifles you don't kill people, than there are people who are on antidepressants and dont.