10 people shot dead in Texas

Graces7

So, and I realise I may have missed this in the thread, how can a student get a gun into school so easily after all the shootings? Cannot remember which but the last time school security was mentioned it was woefully inadequate . A simply bag search?

steddyeddy

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

You don't live in America you don't get it. I'm sorry but it's just that simple.

Work there a considerable amount of time. What does he not get?

Greysquirel09

pjohnson wrote: »

Ahahahahaha what nonsense told you this?

Because when I lived there, I, like you was uninformed and was often filled full of ****e from the internet so when I was receiving medical care and was going through the system I ASKED the people in the hospital how much my treatment would be then I thought wow nurse what happens if I don't health insurance how could I ever afford this?? And she proceeded to inform me of what happens in such cases. Are you guys honestly that stupid to think that in the USA you are go to the hospital and they close the door on you if you have no insurance?? So you tell me what happens in your understanding of American healthcare?

Greysquirel09

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

Because when I lived there, I, like you was uninformed and was often filled full of ****e from the internet so when I was receiving medical care and was going through the system I ASKED the people in the hospital how much my treatment would be then I thought wow nurse what happens if I don't health insurance how could I ever afford this?? And she proceeded to inform me of what happens in such cases. Are you guys honestly that stupid to think that in the USA you are go to the hospital and they close the door on you if you have no insurance?? So you tell me what happens in your understanding of American healthcare?

You get treated and then you file for bankruptcy.

Even if you have insurance, you still have to tell the paramedic which hospitals you're covered in. Getting taken to the wrong one, or being treated an out-of-network doctor while in the right one, could ruin you financially.

Madd Finn

Silane wrote: »

It blows my mind that Irish people think they can tell Americans what to do, when alcohol in Ireland kills more people per capita then guns murders in America. It also costs our economy massive amounts in lost productivity and the burden on the emergency services is massive. It's also probably a factor in most murders here, and then there's the domestic and sexual abuse that also goes along with it.

But hey, not everybody abuses alcohol here, most people use it responsibly, plus its just part of our culture, so it's grand. (Where have we heard that before?)

Plenty of winos, pissheads, bowzies, boozers, lushes, alcos, dipsos, etc etc in America too. Do you think Alcohol doesn't kill anybody there?

For comparison, you would have to compare the domestic violence, heart-disease instances, drunk driving deaths, and all manner of other things between Ireland and a country with extremely strict regulation of alcohol. If you know any.

There's a few in the Middle East. Do you want us to be like them? Say it out loud if you do. It's your right.

splinter65

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

No one is refused medical care in the United States will you get that into your head. They get bills of many thousands of dollars which are written off by the hospitals or by government insurance now please stop trying to continue this ridiculous argument and get back on topic. Burning rubbish in barrels you actually have me laughing you must be watching either Rocky or Trading places. Please get back on topic you are talking nonsense.

This is how easily people in Ireland on the left are brainwashed.
They actually believe that it the US if you are in the throws of a heart attack or are in a car crash that the paramedics who come to your assistance that they will refuse to treat you if you can’t produce health insurance.
It’s laughable.

BattleCorp

RustyNut wrote: »

As individuals yes but as a society no.

How many kids lives would be saved annually if it was mandatory for gun owners to keep their guns securely locked and ammunition stored separately.

How many toddlers have shot toddlers because someone feels the need to exercise their "right" to keep a loaded firearm within reach at all times.

Gun owners rights seem to trump children's rights, or that's how it seems to me anyway.

Isn't society made up of individuals?

I agree with you to a point. Yes, I believe that guns should be safely locked away when not in use. But as long as you have the ability to possess guns for self defence, it's not practical to lock up the guns and bullets seperately as you may need to access them quickly should your life be under threat.

There is too much carelessness regarding firearms in the US. Guns should never be left where kids can get near them.

When you say that gun owner's rights trump children's rights, it isn't as simple as that. Guns are a right in America. They are part of their DNA. For a lot of people (millions and millions), the removal of guns would be akin to the removal of some of our civil rights, such as the right to freedom of religion. If I was a responsible law abiding gun owner in America, I would feel hard done by if I had to give up my guns because of something someone else did. It's not that I don't value the lives of children, it's the fact that children would be no safer by me giving up my guns. You might think I'm comming across as heartless but I'd be considerately more moderate than your average American gun owner.

Graces7

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You've clearly no idea how the US healthcare system works. Thank god for Ireland's public healthcare system.

You're embarrassing yourself here. Go read a book before replying.

REALLY? Our public healthcare is a joke. the US is far more geared to insurance meds than we are and that works.
But to praise the public health care here? I have literally the scars to prove else.

Bubbaclaus

Graces7 wrote: »

REALLY? Our public healthcare is a joke. the US is far more geared to insurance meds than we are and that works.
But to praise the public health care here? I have literally the scars to prove else.

I'm not praising it. I'm saying it's great we have a public health system here. In the US you'd get crippled financially and have to file for bankruptcy. But apparently bankruptcy is fine for some posters on here and equates to a simple "writing off". It's a laughable lack of understanding, coming from a person that claims to understand because they "asked a nurse". I assume she's qualified in bankruptcy law alright.

Lol

Graces7

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I'm not praising it. I'm saying it's great we have a public health system here. In the US you'd get crippled financially and have to file for bankruptcy. But apparently bankruptcy is fine for some posters on here and equates to a simple "writing off". It's a laughable lack of understanding, coming from a person that claims to understand because they "asked a nurse". I assume she's qualified in bankruptcy law alright.

Lol

Read and learn!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/10067521/how-does-us-healthcare-work Tead

Capt'n Midnight

Graces7 wrote: »

So, and I realise I may have missed this in the thread, how can a student get a gun into school so easily after all the shootings? Cannot remember which but the last time school security was mentioned it was woefully inadequate . A simply bag search?

Maybe it's because the culture, and laws, allow carry unless expressly prohibited.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44158099

university policy that prohibited students, professors and employees from carrying "lethal weapons" on campus - but allows "guests" to possess them on school grounds (but not in buildings).

...
Now that I graduated from @KentState, I can finally arm myself on campus. I should have been able to do so as a student- especially since 4 unarmed students were shot and killed by the government on this campus.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

Isn't society made up of individuals?

I agree with you to a point. Yes, I believe that guns should be safely locked away when not in use. But as long as you have the ability to possess guns for self defence, it's not practical to lock up the guns and bullets seperately as you may need to access them quickly should your life be under threat.

There is too much carelessness regarding firearms in the US. Guns should never be left where kids can get near them.

When you say that gun owner's rights trump children's rights, it isn't as simple as that. Guns are a right in America. They are part of their DNA. For a lot of people (millions and millions), the removal of guns would be akin to the removal of some of our civil rights, such as the right to freedom of religion. If I was a responsible law abiding gun owner in America, I would feel hard done by if I had to give up my guns because of something someone else did. It's not that I don't value the lives of children, it's the fact that children would be no safer by me giving up my guns. You might think I'm comming across as heartless but I'd be considerately more moderate than your average American gun owner.

As you mentioned the average US gun owner is nutty compared to your posts so credit where it's due.

However you seem to have a problem with laws designed to protect society at the expense of civil liberties. You realise plenty of these laws exist already? Why should speeding laws apply to me if I can drive safely at speed? Why can't I carry a knife in London just because other people stab people? Why should I be affected by drink driving legislation if I can have one or two and drive safely?

Greysquirel09

splinter65 wrote: »

This is how easily people in Ireland on the left are brainwashed.
They actually believe that it the US if you are in the throws of a heart attack or are in a car crash that the paramedics who come to your assistance that they will refuse to treat you if you can’t produce health insurance.
It’s laughable.

I know it's amazing the crap people will believe.

Greysquirel09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You get treated and then you file for bankruptcy.

Even if you have insurance, you still have to tell the paramedic which hospitals you're covered in. Getting taken to the wrong one, or being treated an out-of-network doctor while in the right one, could ruin you financially.

God where are you getting this from seriously.

steddyeddy

Graces7 wrote: »

Read and learn!

Ahttp://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/10067521/how-does-us-healthcare-work Tead

Or read a Harvard study that shows 45,000 people a year die as a result of no health insurance in America. Not treating certain individuals due to finances also allows them to act as a host for mutating diseases. In other words if you don't treat TB victims you allow the developmemt of untreatable TB strains as is already happening. Right wing views go hand in hand with science ignorance yet again.

pjohnson

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

Because when I lived there, I, like you was uninformed and was often filled full of ****e from the internet so when I was receiving medical care and was going through the system I ASKED the people in the hospital how much my treatment would be then I thought wow nurse what happens if I don't health insurance how could I ever afford this?? And she proceeded to inform me of what happens in such cases. Are you guys honestly that stupid to think that in the USA you are go to the hospital and they close the door on you if you have no insurance?? So you tell me what happens in your understanding of American healthcare?

Its nothing to do with internet. Its to do with actual education. No can honestly think Ameeica's health system is a success.

pjohnson

Graces7 wrote: »

Read and learn!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/10067521/how-does-us-healthcare-work Tead

Yep. No budget cuts coming for medicare and medicaid, no possible changes in 8 years.

steddyeddy

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

God where are you getting this from seriously.

Harvard: news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

I know it's not a bastion of facts like your posts but sure give it a read.

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

As you mentioned the average US gun owner is nutty compared to your posts so credit where it's due.

However you seem to have a problem with laws designed to protect society at the expense of civil liberties. You realise plenty of these laws exist already? Why should speeding laws apply to me if I can drive safely at speed? Why can't I carry a knife in London just because other people stab people? Why should I be affected by drink driving legislation if I can have one or two and drive safely?

Can you tell me which laws I have a problem with? I don't remember complaining about any laws. I have absolutely no problem with laws designed to protect society if they are sensible and well thought out.

I'm not campaigning for the right to have a firearm for self defence. I'm just stating that you can't effectively lock up your guns in one place and have the bullets in another place and still be able to rely on the gun for self defence. I'm quite happy to keep my guns in my legally required safes here in Ireland as we aren't allowed guns for self defence.

As a matter of interest are you equating a responsible law abiding gun owner with a drink driver? Because one is legal and the other is not.

pjohnson

splinter65 wrote: »

This is how easily people in Ireland on the left are brainwashed.
They actually believe that it the US if you are in the throws of a heart attack or are in a car crash that the paramedics who come to your assistance that they will refuse to treat you if you can’t produce health insurance.
It’s laughable.

Nah they will treat you of course. The funny part about the great American system is that uninsured will need to be in a serious state of illness to recieve the care they need.

This means people require either MORE "normal" level healthcare for longer (thus more expensive), OR a stronger level of healthcare for a normal treatment period (more expensive drugs). So that makes the treatments far more costly.

And thats where if its coronary disease or renal disease or cancer related this expensive treatment will be LESS effective due to the advanced nature of the disease. America is one of the worst healthcare services in the world (better than Azerbaijan and Russia) at least. They overspend for a reduced life expectancy. They are a joke.

wes

Reading that one of the victims was his ex- girlfriend. I think domestic violois one of the biggest commonalities amongst mass shooters.

Bubbaclaus

Graces7 wrote: »

Read and learn!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/10067521/how-does-us-healthcare-work Tead

What am I supposed to learn? That article agrees with what I'm saying.

A person goes into medical bankruptcy every minute in the US. Which effects their credit rating for 10 years so will struggle to get any loans for 10 years, will struggle to rent places that do credit checks and will lose a large chunk of their assets.

Greysquirel09

steddyeddy wrote: »

Harvard: news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

I know it's not a bastion of facts like your posts but sure give it a read.

An article from a decade ago. Sit down.

Greysquirel09

pjohnson wrote: »

Nah they will treat you of course. The funny part about the great American system is that uninsured will need to be in a serious state of illness to recieve the care they need.

This means people require either MORE "normal" level healthcare for longer (thus more expensive), OR a stronger level of healthcare for a normal treatment period (more expensive drugs). So that makes the treatments far more costly.

And thats where if its coronary disease or renal disease or cancer related this expensive treatment will be LESS effective due to the advanced nature of the disease. America is one of the worst healthcare services in the world (better than Azerbaijan and Russia) at least. They overspend for a reduced life expectancy. They are a joke.

More false nonsense. Back on topic please.

Squirrel, stop acting like a condescending arse.

Greysquirel09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Squirrel, stop acting like a condescending arse.

We've established no one has a clue about US health insurance in this thread, myself included it seems. It's about a school shooting so let's take it back there is all I'm saying.

Manic Moran

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

An article from a decade ago. Sit down.

In fairness, it's not saying that they are dying because the ambulance refused to take them, it's because they are not getting routine preventative care in the first place, which could detect problems before they became life-enders. It is a definite issue which should be solved.

However you seem to have a problem with laws designed to protect society at the expense of civil liberties. You realise plenty of these laws exist already? Why should speeding laws apply to me if I can drive safely at speed? Why can't I carry a knife in London just because other people stab people? Why should I be affected by drink driving legislation if I can have one or two and drive safely?

Most folks have problems with laws designed to protect society at the expense of civil liberties. It's why the American Civil Liberties Union is such a big deal here. Why the motto of New Hampshire is "Live free or die". And so on.

Yes, the law prohibits speeding. How fast can your car go? Even a humble Ford Fiesta, let alone a Mercedes AMG or something. You may not carry a knife around in London, yet I seem to recall London stabbing rates being in the news recently.

Before proposing a prohibition or restriction on something, I submit that any law should pass some basic tests. 1) Will it, if applied, achieve the desired result? 2) Is it enforceable to ensure it is applied? 3) Will the expected benefit outweigh any potential downsides?

Let us stipulate to the first one. That if all firearms were prohibited, or at least, that if no firearms would be found 'on the streets', as it were, the US's murder rate to firearms (if not the murder rate period) would go down. I have no problem with that part of the equation.

The issues come with 2 and 3. The big one. It's not enforceable. Licensing/security regimens such as Ireland has cannot be enforced. Maybe we could get to something like Czech standards. They can't be enacted in the first place due to the various Federal and State constitutional provisions, and even if they were somehow removed from the equation, the Fourth Amendment will prohibit checks to ensure that none of the 200 million-plus guns are kept. The Fourth is going to be vigorously defended by everyone. We're kindof fond of that one.

For the same reason, "stop-and-frisk" checks are controversial at best, and very difficult to legally carry out in practice. In the 20 years, nearly, I've owned a pistol, not once has a police officer checked to see if I'm carrying it around with me. As London has discovered, they may prohibit knives in circulation, but they can't stop them. Prohibitions against firearms by students (in terms of ownership, carriage, or bringing onto school property) do seem to be having limited effectiveness thus far.

Thirdly, the cost/benefit analysis, which few people seem here to consider. Firearms do have a legitimate purpose in US society, varying from animal control to personal self defense, and their use for such is not infrequent. This could, perhaps be balanced out against the first criterion, but given the big issue of #2, the first criterion has no weight.

So, given that, yes, we do point at the fact that there are speed limits, and that you can't carry knives around in London, and observe that this is precisely why wishing ineffective restrictions on firearms is... well..ineffective.

As a result, we would prefer to focus on other things, such as the fame aspect, or active protection measures.

As to the children killed number, the source is this document here. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486

Over half are homicides, a third suicides. These aren't normally children being gunned down on the way to school, note the section about 2/3 down where it says that most of the homicide victims were killed as parts of gang warfare, drug crime, and other such activity where there is a high mortality rate, and nobody checks that you're over 18 before they let you in. Not that the other deaths aren't tragic, but I wanted to be sure you all had the correct image of who is usually getting killed.

pjohnson

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

More false nonsense. Back on topic please.

Yep good boy stop pretending you undertand healthcare. Back to the greatness of guns.

ManicMoran (who does reside in America) was able to agree that the lack of preventative care is a issue.

steddyeddy

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

An article from a decade ago. Sit down.

You're confusing article with study. Have the findings been disproved since?

evolving_doors

Maybe the kids just lack some basic military training!