Las Vegas mass shooting



BigRedBuster said:
So......

If you know you and society know you are going to die if you don't get something, that doesn't some how relate to:

The unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Click to expand...
The lack of providing something is not the same as infringing upon your right to have it.  So, if the gov't doesn't provide me with healthcare, it doesn't mean that my "right to healthcare"  being infringed upon by the gov't.  So, no, the lack of providing me something, even if I will die without it, is not infringing on my rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  The primary person responsible for Dbqgolfer's healthcare, is Dbqgolfer; not BRB or anyone else.  Having said that, of course I want the best possible healthcare for the most amount of people.  I happen to believe that the free market is the best way to deliver. (health savings accounts combined with catastrophic health insurance, for example). 

 
Dbqgolfer said:
The lack of providing something is not the same as infringing upon your right to have it.  So, if the gov't doesn't provide me with healthcare, it doesn't mean that my "right to healthcare"  being infringed upon by the gov't.  So, no, the lack of providing me something, even if I will die without it, is not infringing on my rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  The primary person responsible for Dbqgolfer's healthcare, is Dbqgolfer; not BRB or anyone else.  Having said that, of course I want the best possible healthcare for the most amount of people.  I happen to believe that the free market is the best way to deliver. (health savings accounts combined with catastrophic health insurance, for example). 
Click to expand...


This particular analogy is a pretty interesting one because right now, the government is hewing pretty closely to interfering with Americans' right to HC. While you may not believe the government is the best way to deliver healthcare (which is a fine opinion to have), I just read an article about the litany of ways the Trump administration is working to undermine current healthcare law. 

I think your premise is about the difference between inherent right & prohibitive cost. My point is it is a very fine line between the two & they may be intermingled in some cases.

For instance, if the only reason something is prohibitively expensive for someone is because of decisions by another party to make it so, one could reasonable argue the latter interfered with their right to have it. It's not that the government merely didn't PROVIDE something; it's that they actively work to AVOID their stated mission to provide something to citizens. Presumably because A) they hate why that dynamic exists B) they don't want to spends money on it & C) they disagree about whether it is a right in the first place.

 
dudeguyy said:
This particular analogy is a pretty interesting one because right now, the government is hewing pretty closely to interfering with Americans' right to HC. While you may not believe the government is the best way to deliver healthcare (which is a fine opinion to have), I just read an article about the litany of ways the Trump administration is working to undermine current healthcare law. 

I think your premise is about the difference between inherent right & prohibitive cost. My point is it is a very fine line between the two & they may be intermingled in some cases.

For instance, if the only reason something is prohibitively expensive for someone is because of decisions by another party to make it so, one could reasonable argue the latter interfered with their right to have it. It's not that the government merely didn't PROVIDE something; it's that they actively work to AVOID their stated mission to provide something to citizens. Presumably because A) they hate why that dynamic exists B) they don't want to spends money on it & C) they disagree about whether it is a right in the first place.
Click to expand...


RedDenver said:
I get that but I'm asking about what you're calling a right, which luxury car ownership is not. Even car ownership is not a right.

Is your stance that there's no price at which your rights have been taken away even if it means the price is so high that only a fraction of the population could afford it? Like if guns started at $100k or $1 million.
Click to expand...
As long as it was the free market that made the price end up at $100k or $1 million.  Now, if the gov't put a $100k tax on the gun so people couldn't afford them, then that would be an infringement.

 
dudeguyy said:
This particular analogy is a pretty interesting one because right now, the government is hewing pretty closely to interfering with Americans' right to HC. While you may not believe the government is the best way to deliver healthcare (which is a fine opinion to have), I just read an article about the litany of ways the Trump administration is working to undermine current healthcare law. 

I think your premise is about the difference between inherent right & prohibitive cost. My point is it is a very fine line between the two & they may be intermingled in some cases.

For instance, if the only reason something is prohibitively expensive for someone is because of decisions by another party to make it so, one could reasonable argue the latter interfered with their right to have it. It's not that the government merely didn't PROVIDE something; it's that they actively work to AVOID their stated mission to provide something to citizens. Presumably because A) they hate why that dynamic exists B) they don't want to spends money on it & C) they disagree about whether it is a right in the first place.
Click to expand...
My big picture belief is that people have the obligation to do all they can to provide for themselves.  Once you change that from an individuals obligation, to an individuals right, then many will no longer make the effort to provide for themselves, because they now have the right to something, not the obligation to get it themselves......this in no way absolves society from the moral obligation to help provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves; in my opinion, preferably  using gov't as a last resort.  So I do not believe your example constitutes an infringement on anyone's right, as they did not have the right to the gov't help in the marketplace to begin with.   This in no way means that I agree with what the Trump Administration is doing.  In fact, I'll admit that I'm ignorant enough about the ACA that I probably shouldn't give an opinion about it.

 
Dbqgolfer said:
My big picture belief is that people have the obligation to do all they can to provide for themselves.  Once you change that from an individuals obligation, to an individuals right, then many will no longer make the effort to provide for themselves, because they now have the right to something, not the obligation to get it themselves......this in no way absolves society from the moral obligation to help provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves; in my opinion, preferably  using gov't as a last resort.  So I do not believe your example constitutes an infringement on anyone's right, as they did not have the right to the gov't help in the marketplace to begin with.   This in no way means that I agree with what the Trump Administration is doing.  In fact, I'll admit that I'm ignorant enough about the ACA that I probably shouldn't give an opinion about it.
Click to expand...


OK, that is fair. You'e making a consistent argument. My only point is the primary driver for the latest round of premium increases (which could effectively price people out of the healthcare market) is the actions of the Trump administration vis a vis the ACA. The threats to not pay subsidies, the refusal to help people sign up to get healthcare (& in fact hatchet the process to make it more difficult to enroll in a marketplace), the rejection of several states 1332 waivers to try to carry out their own marketplace reforms on a state level... Their actions have been cited by many smart HC folks as the #1 reason premiums will spike this year. Uncertainty about their course drives price increases. 

Not only are they not helping in the marketplace, they're actively subverting the free market through their actions to literally cause premium increases. So would interfering with the free market itself due to political motivations to sabotage existing law constitute an infringement on citizen rights?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Landlord said:
What about when people are literally incapable, even if they're doing all they can, of doing what they need for themselves? Either through injury, illness, whatever. Health care doesn't work as a free market because people's lives are held hostage.
Click to expand...
Aw come on Landlord, what about the profits!? It's so easy to make money when our customers can't think rationally about the financial decisions they are making.

 
I very rarely post things these days, but I read a lot of opinions on a lot of things. I'm a school teacher and I have talks with my students all the time about things that happen in our country. This is one of those things that we have discussed. I own shotguns and I'm an avid hunter. I don't own any other weapons and I have no need to. Gun control will always be a tricky conversation and yes I think it needs to be a conversation that we have. I do have some serious questions though and I can admit that I don't have the answers. I have talked about these with my students:

1) If we as a nation would ban all semi-automatic guns, would it really solve the problem? I'm not saying that I don't think it will help, It's just a question that I threw out to my students. It was interesting to see what some of them came up with.

2) If we did have stricter laws and citizens couldn't own certain firearms, what would we start to blame if these tragedies continued? I'm not saying that they would, but what would be the next step if stricter laws did nothing?

3) Here's a point that one of my students brought up and I really didn't have a great answer for it. There are a lot of things that are illegal in our country including drugs and there are millions of people that purchase and use drugs on a daily basis. Why do we think that people will not be able to access these weapons if they are illegal? 

I'm not listing these things and saying that I have all the answers and I'm not saying that I'm against stricter gun laws. I'm just pointing out some things that my students and I discussed.

 
the only reason for a fully automatic weapon is to kill a lot of people in a hurry.    these bump stocks that turn a semi auto into a fully auto weapon should be illegal to own or sell.    and these large capacity clips don't help anyone unless they are targeting a lot of people.  hunters have limits on how many animals they can harvest....mass killers don't have any limit except what their weapons allow them.  10 shot clips (or something similar) is more than reasonable.   these 100 round clips serve no useful purpose unless you are wanting to kill a lot of people.   madmen will still be able to do a lot of damage....but 50 people hurt is better than 600 like this idiot did.   we can't stop the madness....but we can at least try to  limit the damage they can do.

 
Dbqgolfer said:
As long as it was the free market that made the price end up at $100k or $1 million.  Now, if the gov't put a $100k tax on the gun so people couldn't afford them, then that would be an infringement.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying, but to me what you're deciding is that it's not ok for us as a country to use democracy to limit guns, but it's ok if corporations or the wealthy do that. What you're arguing to that we shouldn't use the democratic process to resolve our societal problems. (Yes, I know that's not what you're trying to say, but what I'm saying is that's the practical reality of your argument.)

 
commando said:
the only reason for a fully automatic weapon is to kill a lot of people in a hurry.    these bump stocks that turn a semi auto into a fully auto weapon should be illegal to own or sell.    and these large capacity clips don't help anyone unless they are targeting a lot of people.  hunters have limits on how many animals they can harvest....mass killers don't have any limit except what their weapons allow them.  10 shot clips (or something similar) is more than reasonable.   these 100 round clips serve no useful purpose unless you are wanting to kill a lot of people.   madmen will still be able to do a lot of damage....but 50 people hurt is better than 600 like this idiot did.   we can't stop the madness....but we can at least try to  limit the damage they can do.
Click to expand...
So you don't have answers to any of the questions that I asked? It seems like you were just attacking me and venting instead of giving me any constructive answers. I never said that I was in favor of fully automatic weapons or bump stocks. I was just throwing some questions to talk about. I tried to point out to my students that many people have different opinions and we need to have calm conversations about issues like this instead of letting our emotions speak for us. It's going to be a sensitive subject to discuss, but I would hope that people from both sides can actually have a calm, constructive discussion and actually get something worked out. 

 
SandhillshuskerW said:
So you don't have answers to any of the questions that I asked? It seems like you were just attacking me and venting instead of giving me any constructive answers. I never said that I was in favor of fully automatic weapons or bump stocks. I was just throwing some questions to talk about. I tried to point out to my students that many people have different opinions and we need to have calm conversations about issues like this instead of letting our emotions speak for us. It's going to be a sensitive subject to discuss, but I would hope that people from both sides can actually have a calm, constructive discussion and actually get something worked out. 
Click to expand...
dude...i wasnt responding to you...don't take it personally.   i was just stating my opinion about these machine guns.

 
Back
Top