40 Reasons guns should be banned

[wink]

Rather than force me to change my actions (for better or worse), why don't we just say: "If you get in a wreck and you weren't doing the proper things to care for yourself (seatbelt/helmet/whatever), then the State is not going to pay for your healthcare."

Insurance companies do the same thing. If you don't follow their rules, then you are breaching your end of the contract and they will not pay.

Give me a break. Who is going to let the guy lay in the street and bleed to death. More importantly, who makes that decision, the cops, an EMT. How can they know wearing a helmet would have prevented the injury? "Oh Mr. Huey, I see you weren't wearing a helmet, I am afraid we will not be able to transport you to the hospital." Insurance companies may be able to do it because they have a contract that covers payment for medical procedures. When and where will a motorcycle rider be required to sign such a contract with the federal or state government. Everyone gets emergency treatment in this country. That is the way it should be. It is illegal to deny emergency medical treatment. Since I doubt you are arguing people should be left to die in the street, then we are talking about who pays. Either the hospital does it for free, or discounts the treatment below its costs, or the government pays. Either way we pay through taxes or costs past through to the other consumers that do pay. It is economics. Nothing is free. We pay in the end. One thing that my state has done is say that if you were not wearing a helmet, even on a bicycle, and a helmet would have prevented your injuries, you can not sue for damages arising out of that accident. In that case the injured guy gets emergency care but can not "profit" from his injuries with a large jury verdict.

 

[A4sForever]

.... if you were not wearing a helmet, even on a bicycle, and a helmet would have prevented your injuries, you can not sue for damages arising out of that accident...

Wink, I know that you and I are in lockstep on many (most?) of these things, but here's where we part company ... it's imprecise, subjective, or flawed quasi-science if anyone can "prove" that a helmet could/could not have prevented injuries in a bike accident ... and if they do -- why not require them in cars/trucks as well ... ??? And if the non-helmet wearer is not at fault ... ??? What then ... ???

.... Who is going to let the guy lay in the street and bleed to death?

38 people in one infamous case .... two words for you: Kitty Genovese.

 

[statesman]

Wink,
I think what Bevo and Huey are talking about is the costs for extended care past the initial emergency. Sure the State is going to have to pick up some of that cost, or the hospital is going to eat it, but I think what they are advocating is if you don't have the insurance and you get into an accident the State isn't going to pay for you to stay alive on life support.

Thats certainly what I would advocate. Don't wear a seatbelt, and don't carry insurance? Congratulations you just became an organ donor.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

To clarify: I was not advocating EMT's making a judgment call on the scene as to whether or not an individual was complying with federal, state, and local regulations in order to provide treatment.

I am, as Statesman said, saying we should not provide extended care.

The other problem is that your logic does not follow through. I mean, I could burn myself in a fire due to my own negligence while using a stove - should Uncle Sam step in and mandate PPE for everyone cooking in their homes? I could fall off a ladder while using it improperly. I could electrocute myself performing home repairs. Should their be laws mandating safety equipment for EVERYTHING? Why just transportation?

 

[eddie]

Should their be laws mandating safety equipment for EVERYTHING? Why just transportation?

How many people would really want a safety lock on their Happy Meal toy (b/c McDonald's kills you, clearly)?

It appears to me (although I may be wrong), that the things that are likely to get regulated either a) kill lots of people (transportation) or for whatever reason (cue some angry voice on media bias) are high profile and / or "scary" (guns).

Is that the Slippery Slope coming to consume us all, or is it just a cost of doing business with "the average"?

 

[wink]

I am, as Statesman said, saying we should not provide extended care.

I don't know how you define extended care? Would that be the requirement for a respirator to breath? So we just pull the plug, the state? You will give the state that kind of power? Or, do you mean something like nursing home care for the guy that does not require extraordinary medical care to sustain life, but, say, due to the head injury is otherwise unable to care for himself. In that case, he roams the streets of our city until he dies of exposure or gets killed by a car crossing a street. Of course none of these circumstances are acceptable in our society. It simply will not be allowed. Even if it is private charity taking care of these people, they are funded by Americans dipping into their paychecks. It always costs us something. Either it costs us money of a bit of our moral fiber.

The other problem is that your logic does not follow through. I mean, I could burn myself in a fire due to my own negligence while using a stove - should Uncle Sam step in and mandate PPE for everyone cooking in their homes? I could fall off a ladder while using it improperly. I could electrocute myself performing home repairs. Should their be laws mandating safety equipment for EVERYTHING? Why just transportation?

I wasn't advocating government mandated safety devices in that post. But now that you bring it up, that horse is out of the barn and running though your neighbor's pasture. We deal with government required safety "devices" daily. Medicine bottle caps, warning labels on ladders, blade guards on power saws, all sorts of electrical cut out switches on hundreds of consumer devices, like jet skis, lawn mowers and saws. Even the max temp on your water heater comes preset to a level considered "safe" . The government does not require PPE, but I imagine every building code in this country requires smoke detectors, some retrofitted. One suburb in my metro area requires sprinklers in residential homes. Then there are the mandatory height of railings, swimming pool fences, self closing gates, etc , etc.

 

[HokiePilot]

I'll bet it stopped mob violence in its tracks, and they never had a problem with mobsters owning automatic weapons again.

So, what really stopped the gangs? The end of prohibition.

I wonder what we could do today to end the money stream and power of drug cartels? ...

 

[HueyCobra8151]

I wasn't advocating government mandated safety devices in that post. But now that you bring it up, that horse is out of the barn and running though your neighbor's pasture. We deal with government required safety "devices" daily...

There is a slight difference in these things though. One is an example of government forcing industry to provide basic, reasonable, safety devices into their products. The building code is designed to facilitate the sale of buildings, because a reasonable man doesn't have the technical expertise to know how to safely build a house - or the ability to inspect the entirety of the house once it is finished. Same with the electrical safety devices and the waterheater temp.

The other forces the citizen to use said safety device.

A reasonable man doesn't necessarily know how to construct his own seatbelt on his vehicle - so the government forces automakers to do so. A reasonable man DOES know that wearing a seat belt makes any sort of collision much more survivable - so the government shouldn't need to fine us for not wearing it.

 

[wink]

A reasonable man doesn't necessarily know how to construct his own seatbelt on his vehicle - so the government forces automakers to do so. A reasonable man DOES know that wearing a seat belt makes any sort of collision much more survivable - so the government shouldn't need to fine us for not wearing it.

The compelling interest in the government doing so is the cost the government, and it's citizens, must bear for those not reasonably intelligent enough to see the value in seat belts or helmets and use them. Where does it stop? In some states it stops at motorcycle helmets. On military bases I see motorcycle riders wearing day glo vests. I am uncomfortable with government mandates such as this. But I do see society's interest here. I suppose it stops when the people decide they are willing to carry the costs of stupid people doing unreasonable things and intercede with their government. If the people want the freedom to go helmet less, or not use seat belts, they will just have to pay for it with real dollars in an indirect way. The cost of freedom, put another way.

 

[Flash]

So, what really stopped the gangs? The end of prohibition.

I wonder what we could do today to end the money stream and power of drug cartels? ...

You mean the mob went away after Prohibition?!

 

[Flash]

You didn't respond when I answered you above, but what good does it do to our society to stop me from buying a howitzer and mounting it in my backyard? Where do you draw the line? What size of round and range of weapon is TOO much?

If I cannot purchase an artillery piece, can I still fill my van up with fertilizer and do the same thing with it? Are there any cases of artillery pieces being used to commit mass murder by a private citizen? Or do they just look bad?

Call it unreasonable, I would argue its common sense, but I don't think anyone should own an artillery piece. And I doubt those that are privately owned, as some have pointed out, have the appropriate 'live' rounds either. We had two light artillery pieces at school but they fired off nothing but smoke, much to the disappointment to the guys that fired them.

And you can cause much more destruction with a single piece of artillery and the appropriate rounds than a van full of fertilizer.

As for what is the upper limits, I don't know. That is why I asked.

 

[scoolbubba]

We had two light artillery pieces at school but they fired off nothing but smoke, much to the disappointment to the guys that fired them.
.

Figures, the citadel guys couldn't get their guns off properly.

Just because the cannon is not supposed to fire anything off but smoke does not mean if you put a projectile in front of 1 pound or so of gunpowder it won't do what it's designed to... My gun crew could figure that out at school.

Just saying.

 

[phrogpilot73]

And you can cause much more destruction with a single piece of artillery and the appropriate rounds than a van full of fertilizer.

Let me know when an Arty round is equivalent to 4000lbs of TNT, then I'll agree with you. Until then - this statement is pretty much full of crap.

(in case you were curious a single 155mm HE round has ~24 lbs of TNT - so that would mean you'd have to fire a battery 27 in order to achieve the same results. Or in your argument, a single piece of artillery would have to fire 166 rounds.)

 

[A4sForever]

Let me know when an Arty round is equivalent to 4000lbs of TNT, then I'll agree with you. Until then - this statement is pretty much full of crap.....

As much as I hate to get into bed w/ Flash (not that there's anything wrong w/ that ..... ) ... here's one:

M65 ATOMIC CANNON - Wiki

OPERATION UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE GRABLE - Wiki





The pix is from May, 1953. 280mm cannon (called 'Atomic Annie' -- used the German 'Anzio Annie' as a starting point) .... @ 15 KT = rough equivalent to Little Boy .... Grable was only the second gun-type warhead ever detonated, Little Boy being the first over Hiroshima. Adm. Arthur W. Radford, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and SecDef Charles E. Wilson were present for the test.

Where can I buy one of THOSE ???

 

[phrogpilot73]

Sorry, I foolishly thought that Flash meant conventional artillery... IAEA and all that jazz makes it hard to procure/fire an atomic cannon...