Do you trust your neighbor to own a sword?

[Tesorodeoro]

“Affordable Healthcare” (I put that in quotes because it’s never very affordable) is partially to blame for many of the “active shooter” incidents.
In other words, children (with developing brains) were prescribed mind altering drugs (that are abused).
The current mental health treatment includes an ever increasing cocktail of drugs designed to alter moods. Each one altering the affect of the other leaving the patient a shell of a person. Ask anyone that has been treated for anxiety and or depression.

Then people blame firearms when one of these patients or ex-patients go on a shooting rampage.

Please people let’s get to the root of the problem. It’s not guns or accessibility to health care.
It happens in the home as children are growing up. It’s our changed societal values in my opinion.

Can you argue against what I’ve said here Ol Bookaroo? I enjoy reading the respectful banter.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Old Bookaroo]

Tesorodeoro:

Healthcare can be affordable - if the profit is taken out of it. Look at how little other nations spend - with better outcomes.

Your post offers a couple of theories. Without data to back them up, I don't have a response.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[crashbandicoot]

Bookaroo,you have a great deal to say about the problem but just what do you propose to solve it.Let,s hear what laws you would propose,not a refutation of what everybody else has said,but exactly what should we do per bookaroo.

 

[Johnnybravo300]

The US isnt even in the top 50 of murder rates by country so it's a non issue, especially including our firearms numbers.
It's a very safe place to live besides a few blue states in general.
Only a few states and cities make up most of our homicides.
The 1.5 to 3 million crimes stopped with guns is a worthy note as reported by the fbi.

 

[newnan man]

Profit out of healthcare? Right. Problems abound with sky high insurance, drs. paying back student loans etc. Take free market out doesn't help as crooks in the gov't will just step in and take the money. Socialism cannot work as everything always settles down to the lowest common denominator. It has been a collossal failure everywhere it has been tried. Scandinavian countries are free market then utilizing expensive social programs. What person would endure 8-12 years of rigorous schooling to become a dr and then make peanuts. Everyone wants affordable healthcare so get rid of what makes it expensive and pay wages to recruit the finest in personnel. I don't want a poor dr. pissed off about life treating me.

 

[Johnnybravo300]

If there was cheap healthcare there would be no reason for the govt to take it all over.
Cheap free market pricing is the last thing they want.

More subsidies! Make it unaffordable for all!

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

Tesorodeoro:

Healthcare can be affordable - if the profit is taken out of it. Look at how little other nations spend - with better outcomes.

Your post offers a couple of theories. Without data to back them up, I don't have a response.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

The belief that one is entitled to the fruits of another's labor isn't a new one.

Of course, this being a forum centered on things of historical nature, most here realize that antiquity doesn't necessarily equate to value.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Johnnybravo300:

"The US isnt even in the top 50 of murder rates by country..."

Factually incorrect - but the US of A is ahead of Yemen! And Afghanistan!

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

crashbandicoot:

Posted above.

So far, everyone else has suggested nothing - just what the oppose.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

newnan man:

Why are US of A healthcare costs so very high (compared to what other nations pay) yet our results aren't the very best?

Socialism has worked in other countries. Which is not to claim it would work here - but since nobody is seriously suggesting we try it, the point is moot.

Actually, in Cuba (with a very high percentage of medical doctors relative to its population) many people do go to medical school (for free) and then work for the government. Again, that's not a claim we could do the same. But to maintain nobody would do it doesn't comport with the facts.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Since no one here is suggesting that any one person is entitled to the fruits of another's labors, you post doesn't relate to the conversation.

There's a huge difference between fair compensation and "profit" (an accounting opinion). When it comes to American healthcare, profit represents inefficiencies in the system we all pay for - in far more ways than one.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Johnnybravo300:

The government isn't trying to "take over" healthcare. That is wrong on many levels.

How do "subsidies" make healthcare "unaffordable?"

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

USA is #55 according to this intentional homicide rate list.

https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Charlie P. (NY):

It would appear to depend on the definition used of "murder."

Murder Rate by Country 2021 (worldpopulationreview.com)

Frankly, being ahead of tiny nations like Poland, Morocco, Algeria and Ghana isn't much to brag about.

Why not concentrate on the simple fact that our current situation is untenable? Most of us learn as children that there are always going to be folks who have it better than we do - and folks who have it much worse. We can certainly learn from both. And we can certainly do better.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Duckshot]

The socialist paradise of Venezuela is cooking right along at over 36 homicides per 100,000 population compared to the USA's five per 100,000.

 

[Duckshot]

Why not concentrate on the simple fact that our current situation is untenable? Most of us learn as children that there are always going to be folks who have it better than we do - and folks who have it much worse. We can certainly learn from both. And we can certainly do better.

You must mean they can do better because we would include me and I have not killed anyone.

What are some possible solutions that you have considered, Old Bookaroo?

 

[crashbandicoot]

crashbandicoot:

Posted above.

So far, everyone else has suggested nothing - just what the oppose.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

Au contraire,bookaroo.You,ve given not one solid thing so far.My question was what would bookaroo propose?Would you have total confiscation,one,s guns go to the grave with you when you die so you can,t pass them on to a son or daughter?What?Not generalities,specifics,on what laws you think would solve the problem

 

[crashbandicoot]

I am seriously looking at a 22lr target pistol for a carry gun. Insane accuracy and thats what counts, 230 grains doesnt mean anything if it doesnt connect. the people shooting the 22lr target pistols type smily faces dot the eyes, cross the t, cut off the neck and draw hair on their target, try doing that with a 9. If I had that kind of confidence with my pistol id be very pleased.

I usually have a Browning Buckmark with adjustable sights close by.As you stated,extreme accuracy,no recoil to speak of and a couple of long rifle hollow points in the eye will definitely change your mind.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Frankly, being ahead of tiny nations like Poland, Morocco, Algeria and Ghana isn't much to brag about.

Why not concentrate on the simple fact that our current situation is untenable? Most of us learn as children that there are always going to be folks who have it better than we do - and folks who have it much worse. We can certainly learn from both. And we can certainly do better.

Is it because we have better guns or they have better people? We open our doors for other countries to send "the wretched refuse of your teeming shore" here. So they did.

Our world population is what is untenable. It has more than doubled since I was born. And the doubling rate is speeding up. We've polluted the seas, killed the coral, scoured the sea-floors, over-fished the oceans, poisoned the bees & pollinators, poisoned the soil, contaminated the aquifers. Guns hardly make the list of things I worry about that need correction. My simple solution is to avoid cities at all costs.

If COVID-19 had attacked corn or wheat (or rice) instead of humans you would really see some fun times when famine drove nations insane.

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

Since no one here is suggesting that any one person is entitled to the fruits of another's labors, you post doesn't relate to the conversation.


Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

The suggestion of ending for profit endeavors is based on the belief that one is entitled to the fruits of another's labor.

It's just that you're not comfortable admitting to it. Nor should you be.

I've noted your desire to control previously. While I appreciate your effort to make decisions for me; I'll not delegate the task to you, and will maintain my right to decide if my thoughts are relevant to the conversation.

There's a huge difference between fair compensation and "profit" (an accounting opinion). When it comes to American healthcare, profit represents inefficiencies in the system we all pay for - in far more ways than one.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

Who decides what is a "fair compensation"?

In the US that decision has traditionally been the market; which drives competition, advances, and lower prices for the end consumer.

"Profit" is merely the means of reward for risks taken and goods/services provided. It isn't up to you to decide if that profit is fair, or not. Your choice begins and ends at the point of determining whether you wish to participate by purchasing a good or service from a particular company/individual.

When it comes to American healthcare, profit represents inefficiencies in the system we all pay for - in far more ways than one.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

And we're back to you thinking you're entitled to the fruits of another's labor.

So called inefficiencies in a for-profit business are quickly taken advantage of by the competition. That is not the case with a government ran monopoly - where inefficiencies are so incredibly rampant that nobody has any real ability to fully account for all the waste.

The very thing that you're against - profits - are the driving force behind nearly all medical advancements. Profits drive the best and brightest to make sacrifices that most wouldn't dream of. Profit drives companies/individuals to take monetary risks. Profits drive the advancements that we're all benefitting from.

I get it. You operate from the realm of a fantasy-land where all labor/investments are on an equal footing, and the capacity for harm can be removed by exchanging citizenship for serfdom. On paper the fantasy has great appeal; in reality it has never worked, will never work, and the results are horrific for all but the very few who are in control.



Since this is a forum largely dedicated to metal detecting, let me make the point using that subject.

The machines we use are - without exception - the results of monetary investments in engineering, research, development, labor, marketing, sales, etc... All with a profit-driven motive. It is that profit-driven motive that pushes companies to meet/exceed the capabilities of their competition - in the market segments that the particular company participates in.

Naturally there are machine winners/losers - some machines are believed (by consumers) to be superior to competitive products. Those "superior" machines tend to change (in the public mind) as companies bring out new offerings and customers gravitate to or from specific companies/machines.

That push - for profit reasons - to offer a machine that is well received (by the public) results in advancements across the spectrum of market segments (low cost to high cost) and we detectorists benefit as a result. If company A has a winner (a machine that the public purchases in ample numbers) the competition (Companies B, C, D, etc..) take steps to meet/beat the abilities of the machine offered by Company A - again, the consumer wins.

As a result of all these profit-driven advancements, it isn't uncommon (on this very forum) to see posts where the owner/user of a lower cost machine makes a spectacular find - a find that most of us would be overjoyed to make.

Another thing made very obvious (on this forum) is the fact that not all of us are equal. It isn't just the machines that have differences - the users themselves are different. There are some detectorists who could out hunt me (and perhaps others) with the least capable machine available. Even if/when I was using the most capable machine available.

It is what it is.

In the US we are guaranteed equal treatment under the law - not equal outcomes in life.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

A system where outcomes are determined so all are equal, automatically plays to the weakest link - bringing all to that lowest denominator.

We should all be very thankful that we do not have such an absurd system.

I have zero doubt that you would chafe at the prospect of being restricted to holding only the ability of the person least capable of finding a good target while metal detecting - despite your apparent craving for imposed equality.

If you're the better detectorist - so be it.

My choices would then consist of...

1. Learning and becoming a better detectorist

2. Quitting the hobby

3. Accepting mediocrity and expecting the same of others

Our system places a strong preference on the first option.

Your system (of choice) demands option #3.