The Great Gun Debate.

Your opinion of what's "reasonable" or not and mine don't align.


Not to mention that when it comes to one's rights, people shouldn't be necessarily be reasonable.

So I have questions when it comes to gun regulation of handguns/rifles vs shotguns. Why aren't shotguns regulated the same or at least talked about more? I know some body armor can save people from 'some' shotgun round types but in examples of school shootings, wouldn't shotguns cause much more death and destruction ~ especially when you get into the slugs/high caliber shells

That's all cute and well and good but pretending they're even an actual interest of their own is a bunch of silly crap. ^^;

A place like that would get steamrolled. Their government has still made a decision regarding the worth of their lives and the lives of those that protect them, even if they're not directly citizens of that nation.

Yes, I was very aware of "peaceful" countries when I made my initial statement. But that doesn't exclude them from my statement, it just applies in a slightly different way.

Wait, I thought every gun was supposed to be registered already.

You were making heavy-handed social commentary. I was providing a very reasonable counterbalance to your point.

But you're right. We don't do nearly enough via medicare and other government health programs ensuring that everyone receives proper treatment. I'm surprised you're willing to admit that.

I figured I was making broad strokes on the government value of life.

But I see your point.


I blame government inefficiency on it.

Also that the government is being half-assed when it comes to actually providing benefits. Either do it all the way (force doctors/clinics to see/treat only Medicare patients) or let the individual decide, don't try to compromise in the middle.

If the government decides on the former, then Medicare patients will be stuck with substandard care and be forced to pay for better care (and thus get out of government assistance) or suck it up. If the government decides on the latter, the individual would be responsible for their own care, which gives total control to the individual (and the government doesn't like that at all).

Either way, it will prove that government has no ability to run people's lives and should do what it's made to do, which is to protect the nation militarily and commercially.

No.

Yet it didn't, it was allowed but it wasn't a right.

It's your opinion that they have no business owning it, and you're entitled to that opinion.

You forget I'm among the people who view the goal as becoming a society where medicine is a right, not a moneyed privilege.

Maybe we never get there, but I'm pretty sure if you want to profit from people's death, illness, and misery you're a scumbag.

Before ACA came to being, it was a right. Hospitals were required by law to treat you even if you couldn't afford the care monetarily.

Now that ACA demands that everyone buy insurance, it's now considered a "moneyed" privilege, determined by how much money you are willing to fork over for such coverage. And those who cannot afford insurance are pretty much thrown into the Medicare inefficiency pot.

I don't know of any industry who wants to profit from people's death/illness/misery (other than the federal government).

Individuals, yes. Industries, no.

I know you're not going to understand this, but it's because it's their right to do so. They don't have to justify it to anyone.

If you're a defense contractor, you profit on the death/illness/misery of others. The larger military industrial complex needs more war, conflict and American posturing in order to justify their existence.

I'm sure you can dredge up more industries that aren't exactly in the sunshine and rainbows business.

Jet once argued that people should be able to possess nukes if they wanted to. It's safe to say that I'll be now mining uranium ore in my backyard.

Purely for defense.

If I had a nuke, I'd hunt with it.

Safe to say you won't have a deer problem anymore. Or free standing structure problem either.

If you are going to take that route, then you are a(n) (in)direct cause of all the suffering in the world because you (probably) pay taxes which pays for said defense contractors who create weapons who causes said death/illness/misery of others. Therefor, you are an evil person who should be wiped from the face of the earth.

Most defense contracts provide assets who save the lives of the military, and also the lives of the people who are held hostage by the governments/organizations who are trying to destroy civilization as we know it. But you don't see that, do you?

Remember, you were the one who played that card.

If you only look at the negative sides of business, sure. There is not one business in the universe who is perfect in any way, shape, or form.

But all businesses have positive effects towards humanity also, and nearly all of them have more positive effects than negative.

So, if you are going to condemn a business for one negative action while ignoring any positive effects towards society, then don't blame people for doing the same towards you.

because a lot of the people wanting more regulation know very little about the things they want to regulate.

You asked for an industry that plies their trade in suffering and I gave you one. Apply the spin afterwards. Defense companies make profit via conflict and if they had their way they would have endless conflict. Because it's a business.


Nice spin. Dodging the fact that these companies seek to profit from conflict isn't changed because you draped an American flag over them. The definition doesn't change because you feel that they're doing the right thing. They profit from conflicts.


An ice cream company doesn't profit from misery and death though eating ice cream could in excess cause harm. A defense company as a nature of their business is in the business of profit via conflict.


All businesses are positive towards humanity? Sure about that?

Again, that's something the federal government is good at doing, which I already stated such.

Defense companies wouldn't exist without the federal government. So, the industry is completely dependent on the federal government itself.

For one thing, it's not an American-only concept. All countries with defense budgets do the exact same thing.

For another thing, as stated above, it's still the federal government directing such industry. Which, also stated above, I already stated.

Yes. Care to give any examples on how they don't have a positive impact towards society? Also, I noticed that you dropped the word "effect" from your rebuttal.

Just by purchasing product (be it human labor, goods, services, intangible assets to name a few) provides more positive effects towards humanity and society than most of the negativity portrayed towards business.

Mutated anthrax.

(For duck huntin')

Heh. Just like the coffins of our troops.~

You can try to pass the buck to the feds all you want but the two are synergistic towards eachother. Defense companies lobby the government and in turn the government uses defense companies to expand their power.

This isn't all bad per se, but the fact remains that these companies exist to cause suffering to others. Be that bombs, aircraft or any other weapons / armor / equipment.

I mentioned an American flag because you used a hawkish argument that these companies 'protect us' in order to detract from the reality that at its core these companies exist to inflict harm and need conflict in order to sell their products and want to make money. Justifications can be applied afterwards.

It's a simple cause and effect here. No conflict or lesser conflict means shareholders suffer as does the health of the company at large.


This is irrational. You want to say all companies are good when many companies engage in illegal, immoral activity that benefits few while causing long term harm to others. This isn't to say that all business is bad but you're floating off in space saying all business is net positive.

Be it bribing governments in South America at the cost of the populace for logging rights, human rights violations in silver mines, your Apple devices being churned out by legal slaves or trawlers that destroy ocean habitats there are plenty of businesses that you'd be hard pressed to spin as 'good'. Maybe good if you're a shareholder.

Seriously, you think a company that dumps toxic chemicals into a river system people drink water from is good? Or polluting a lake then walking from responsibility? Or exposing residents of a town to toxic plumes? Cmon man.

no, it's all bad....

as an employee of an evil defense contractor I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavours to limit our power...

in the mocking.. doctor evil... sort of way.. followed by diabolical laughter of course.

hugs and kisses,

evil enterprises
a subsidiary of haliburton

To all the people who have so much hatred towards the Defense Department:

You remind me of this clip

I wish I could do it on YT, but they don't have a good clip for that...

Just you wait till me and my band of 8 foot tall blue skinned friends take down you evil, immoral, money grubbing swine! You'll get your unobtanium over my dead, borrowed body.

The only thing that can stop a bad defense contractor is a good guy with sticks and dragons.

Niko, you're not evil, you're just evil-boned.