dimreepr

Insane for a few reasons:

1/ the ‘logistics’ where/which country/city would we meet.

2/ the quality of trolls/gun toting nut jobs this site attracts.

3/ who would pay for the venue?

4/ do we serve cheese nips or wotsits?

A mad semi-stoned/slightly-tipsy idea but who’d be up for it, in principal and with the appropriate security?

Come on who’s curious enough to, maybe, make it a virtual get together?

So, instead of Dunning-Kruger, perhaps we call this Bungling-Reviewer.

The angry response to a simple question (and subsequent evasion), is good rule of thumb as to which is which.

One must deny another person's rights because he sees a doctor?

So you think a mentally unstable person should have a firearm (a doctor would only recommend it if he/she thought it was necessary); perhaps you’d rather shoot them when they go on the rampage (I have little doubt you’d just consider that as target practice)?

It disgusts me to think people would hide their symptoms to keep their guns.

Let's not get holier than thou; we are all guilty of some sin.

You feel for them?

Yes, of course, anyone seeking help for mental health issues deserves compassion.

It seems very selfish IMO.

Please explain?

I think the only way your premiss could work, telepathy aside, is if an individuals capacity for, honest, introspection could lead to a greater understanding of our fellow man.

It certainly seems to be a possibility and whilst I feel for those that would succumb to such fears, I think the lesser of the two evils, is rather obvious.

Why waive the requirement? Why not just reduce the cost to a fraction of the gun cost?

Edit/ That way even a perfect storm of unlucky would be covered; potentially.

Otherwise I’m in complete agreement.

Good point well made +1 and yet I fear our fun loving participant who pretends to want gun control, yet objects to any and every legitimate action, will no doubt object.

 

As I said, I don't want to hijack the thread, but life insurance works just like car insurance, you agree on the value with your insuror and you pay premiums that reflect the value. With medical insurance, you can't know how ill you'll be.

 

More of a dig at US privatized medical insurance, but the real problem here is that normal life insurance is a consensual contract where both parties agree on what the life being insured is worth should it end. Gun insurance would only be making an offer to a victim or victim's family, one they should be able to disagree with.

Again me.

But what if the victim lives? They may be able to disagree/argue but they won’t always succeed, so at least some will benefit.

 

I think you're both wrong. You CAN put a price on someone's life, that's what life insurance is all about. What you can't know is the price of someone's health. I don't want to go off on a tangent, though.

Emphasis mine.

That's why we take out insurance.

Back, I'll be.

I know it’s weak but the way I see it, Hans Solo gets trapped in a “ground hog day” like moment and eventually emerges as yoda.

. Besides, gun insurance assumes we can put a price on someone's life like we would a car.

No but you can put a price on someone’s health.

A incredibly small price to pay to enjoy the thrill of pretend killing be that skeet or target.

Edit/ That doesn't include those among us that depend on prey to live.

I have to admit ‘I love guns’ and we have to mitigate the impact of rats and other such creatures simply to maintain a reasonable return on our chicken, duck, pig and sheep business.

There were 202 swimming pool drownings of children in one summer, but how many are there per year?

Doing the math from iNow's link, there are 20*0.06*365 or 438 deaths of children by guns per year.

At least in terms of child deaths, which are particularly undesireable, swimming pools constitute as much as half as many deaths. But a closer analysis might provide a per-pool vs per-gun comparison.

On the other, I would expect injuries from pools to be quite low. Aside from the 6% who die, how many gun victims are permanently maimed?

Does it matter? If a child’s life is saved, what’s the difference? Be it child proof fencing, around a pool or a child proof safety switch on guns?

That makes two. Happy to learn you found yourself a third time..

Noticing you choosed as avatar twice a person portrayed by an actor and not a real individual.

Don't wish to hard Darth Vader's next.

When I was 10 I dreamed of going to university (to study physics or computing) but when I was 13 I dreamed of being cool, unfortunately my 10 y/old self, lost the argument.

I had to look twice but his pistol looks different??? he's lost my respect....

( are we being intenionally obtuse , Dimreeper ? )

I often think my pithy remarks are much funnier when I’m drunk, my spelling also suffers.

And sometimes, to stay on topic, it’s a good job I don’t have ready access to a lethal weapon.

Please can we keep this to questions/answers and discussion of black and white holes rather than spending 2 paragraphs explaining how retarded my idea is, if you don't like it stop reading...pretty simple right?

That's really not how a discussion works.

I guess I have my answer. But the reason it's jammed politically is the huge gun lobby.

Good point.

I have no problem with those that feel a god is needed to be fulfilled, I just think that either way it's existence is unnecessary, much like a real penny black is little different to a fake penny black in that need.

That certainly has happened here in the UK but our state pension is threatened by our determination to keep the 'so called' immigrants out.

Edit/ cross posted with swansont.

Let's provide a few hints, eh?

Why not just answer my question, eh?

I think maybe the OP is thinking that many state pensions seem to be little more than a ponzi scheme.