Jump to content
Paco, you should do a little more reading on requirements in the countries you cite. It's far more than background checks, no matter how thorough. In Australia, for instance, you must prove a need, and personal protection is NOT considered a need; very few people qualify, and hundreds of thousands of guns had to be turned in. Stand by your beliefs, Paco - if you want what they have, at least be honest about what that is.
Whatever. (Is that clear enough?)
I grew up in another country and mostly went to small neighborhood private schools, with three years of third-world public schools and three years of American high school. So growing up, most of my education was not provided by US governments, although some was.
Growing up with kids who didn't own a pair of shoes for school was probably different from what you may have experienced, but it was not the moon. It was an education in itself.
And I've never claimed I have received no benefit from any governmental policies. That's your hyperbole. The issue was whether I was being "greedy" for even questioning any education spending. You seem to think anyone who isn't willing to write a blank check deserves that insult.
Paco, the changes implemented in England, Australia and the Scandinavian countries are not "proper background checks" but near total bans with confiscation. If that's what you want, say so and stop droning about background checks, which would have no appreciable effect on gun-related fatalities.
Paco, in Florida you ARE allowed to ask a patient about guns IF it affects the patient's safety or that of others. You are just not allowed to harass the patient about gun ownership or discriminate against him/her if he/she owns a gun or declines to answer.
35,000 gun-related fatalities in a year is "unheard off (sic) in the history of the civilized world"? (It's down to 31,000 lately.) Why does it trouble you so much that a fatality is gun-related? Most gun-related fatalities - almost two-thirds - are suicides. Would you prefer it if Americans killed themselves like they do in Japan (where the suicide rate is more than double ours) - hanging or throwing themselves in front of trains? How would this make those deaths better?
No one denies that guns are inherently dangerous, Paco. So are generators, cars, kitchen knives, ladders, bathtubs, pools, ground beef, chickens, aspirin, and numerous other objects in daily use. And if we banned all those things, we'd have a much safer environment.
It's been estimated there are 100,000 hospitalizations and more than 16,000 deaths annually from accidental complications of NSAID use. Those figures vastly exceed the hospitalizations and deaths from firearm accidents. Yet people can buy huge bottles of aspirin at Costco without any background checks, training, or other protections. Wouldn't it be safer to ban NSAIDs? We don't because most people recognize they have compensating value, and there's no multi-million dollar campaign to demonize them and their users like there is for guns, which also have compensating value.
So let me get this straight: The county bought and remodeled a building for $5 million dollars three years ago, and it needs nearly $500,000 in HVAC repairs now? And even though the borrowed money for this was only 40% of the total and at a favorable interest rate, the income is not enough to make the loan payments?
How could these issues not have been known at the time of the acquisition? Surely there must have been cash flow projections made.
Not one of the incidents described in the above article would have been prevented by different background checks. One gun was owned by a law-abiding combat veteran, one by a police officer and both the others, if I remember the stories correctly, were purchased after background checks.
It's ironic that two of those stories involve people who were VERY familiar with firearms - a combat vet and a police officer. In fact, most unintentional injuries probably do involve such people, because it is human nature to become more casual with the tools one uses in daily life. I can't imagine cleaning my firearms without removing the magazines - I even remove them and all ammunition from the work area - but maybe if they were handled every day it would be easy to become complacent.
On the other hand, this story fails to tell us if the RATE of unintentional shooting injuries is higher or lower. If Washington is conducting three times the number of background checks as a decade ago, but injuries have only increased by 30%, it may be that the rate of injury is actually going down.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, the $$ being spent today on education are far greater (after inflation) than the dollars spent in the earlier periods you reference, with poorer quality outcomes. So we're not talking about making a "similar investment" for the benefit of today's generation, but a far larger one, with a lower cost-return profile. I'd have no problem at all making a "similar investment", but that's not what you want. You want a blank check. And you're right that I'm not willing to do that. I've never understood why some people can call it "greed" to want to keep some of one's own money, but think it is generosity to grab someone else's money.
(By the way, most of my education was provided by my parents, and was not publicly funded. Neither of them received benefits under the GI Bill.)
As to the condescension and insult - look to the beam in your own eye.
Corporations going belly up is not a counter-argument to what I was saying about profit, it is the proof of it.
Ah! I see its that language difficulty we seem to have, rearing its head again.
Last login: Friday, April 11, 2014
2014 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.