Hiku said:
Sorry, there's something I've edited into my post twice now, after you hit reply, and you missed it both times because of my late timing. lol
Here it is again:
"Anyway, I edited something into my post after you replied. I essentially said that because the sample size for school shootings is so low in other developed nations (0, 1 or 2) and will likely stay the same or very similar years from now, while the number in USA will shift greatly, from 288 last year to let's say 310 this year, a direct comparison to the difference in gun circulation ratio can't really tell us anything.
The gun ratio will stay the same next year, and so will the number of school shootings in Japan (most likely), but USA will add a few dozen school shootings to its tally.
Meaning it's not so much the specific difference in gun ratio that shows us the proportion to school shootings. But rather something else.
I would argue it's a combination of the fact that they barely have any guns in the country, significantly stricter gun regulations both for safety and ownership/use, as well as different gun culture. You don't see (actual) gun adds or military adds, or hear people talk about guns or gun ownership or gun violence, or see them for sale at your local supermarket while you pick up milk on your way home. It's not particularly part of the mindshare, and not one of the first things that pops up in your head when you get angry."
Regarding the death toll figure for people who can't afford healthcare, someone who got cancer after knowingly spending a lot of time around radioactive material would be part of that figure if their condition was treatable, (meaning they would would be expected to make a recovery if treated), but they didn't go through with that treatment, their income and insurance suggest they can't afford it, and they died an unnatural death after that.
However, if that same person was supposed to die from cancer on a specific day, but died in a car crash a few weeks earlier, he would possibly still be part of that figure if the study can't see the exact cause of death. Just that he died.
But where was he going in that car? Maybe he was on his way to pick up a big loan from someone, so he could finally afford his healthcare. That's where some for these estimates may be off. Because they look at the people's medical records, see if they got treatment for treatable but otherwise deadly conditions, and then look at their death records.
As for people being entitled to free stuff, it's not really that people have an inherent right to those things. It comes down to two things. 1.) We recognize that there are people in our society that need to be taken care of. And whom no one will take care of, unless we step up as a collective.
The state take tax money from us regardless. We should have some say in where it goes. Universal healthcare just so happens to be something that the majority of the population tends to agree on. As for the ones who don't agree... 2.) Well we live in a society, right? You don't bring your own roads to drive on. That's something we all paid for. But, you might ask, why should I pay for the fire department? My house is not on fire. Or a bridge you'll never cross, a library you'll never use, a park you'll never visit, or elected officials who are not relevant to you.
Well the answer is because we do things for the greater good. That's what being in a society is about. And that means having to force some people to get on board, because some such as yourself will disagree. If everyone was simply left to fend for themselves with varying opinions on everything, much in our society would simply not function.
|
So now your saying because the gun ratio shouldn't change much but the amount of violent acts will, that it's really not the guns fault? I would have to agree for the most part.
Well personally, if you were around something that is known to cause cancer, and you got cancer, and you couldn't afford the treatment to fight that cancer, I'd say that's not really the systems fault, it's your own. Now if you had no idea that you could get cancer in the situation that caused it, then that's a little different, but that's also why people are supposed to have a rainy day fund and why that should be enough to allow you to borrow on top of that if you need more expensive help.
The majority rarely pass up anything free. I'm sure if everyone was offered free food they would all agree it should be a right as well. Having a right to speech makes sense because all it really requires is a right to life, which is also a major topic up for debate these days. Healthcare as a right in terms of it being free for everyone, like free contraceptives lets say, makes me think of having gun ownership being considered a right in terms of guns being free for everyone. Feel like you need protection? Here's a free gun. Not sure why people would see a difference in that, even though they certainly would.
The way I see it, if I don't pay my share of the fire taxes, if I call and my place is on fire, nobody bothers to show up. It's like not having insurance on some things. If they are destroyed for whatever reason, then tough luck. That's your choice though, and it should be in every way. The problem with this, is that many of the rich won't buy in, and the middle class and poor will only be able to afford mediocre solutions to things they want like a fire dept or healthcare.
The problem with this idea of socialist everything, is that over time, the smarter, harder working people either eventually slowly stop caring as much which leads to the economy slowly stagnating, or they leave and go elsewhere, to where they can do what they want. There is a reason why people like Elon Musk went from Africa to Canada to America. Musk could never be anything close to what he's created now in Africa or Canada, and that's certainly a big reason why his companies are American. Now since it seems he wants to help society as much as possible, that's great that he's aloud to do that, but you can almost guarantee, if you started taxing him in a manner in which he can now only afford to run Tesla or The Boring Co or SpaceX, and he had to choose, you can bet he keeps Space X because he's not giving up Mars, and that's going to do the least for humanity out of those 3 companies.
"I was hungry and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. And behold, now I'm all lazy and entitled. You shouldn't have done that." This is why continually giving away free things and calling them rights becomes a problem, because it's true. Most people tend to get lazier when they are treated to good and the rich people paying for much of that start caring less as well, and the entire economy slowly suffers.
Currently Online 
