Privately owned guns save more lives than they take

[Dr Strangelove]

The Soviet Union had a big social welfare system and it had a lot of crime.

I think the lots of crime part began after the Soviet Union broke up.

[Dinner]

Yeah, from what I hear prior to the USSR breaking up crime wasn't really a big problem as they had LOTS of police and decent social welfare programs. Yeah, you were all equally poor (except for politically connected party members who got to shop in special shops or if you were an in demand specialty or if you agreed to work in a remote location in exchange for a bonus like a car or flat) but no one was starving.

[kentonio]

Yeah, comparing the Soviet Union to places like Norway is showing a pretty enormous lack of understanding of modern socialist states.

[Felch]

The Soviet Union was a crime.

[regexcellent]

Frankly, even if the lack of welfare were the reason we have inner city violence, which it's not, I wouldn't give a ****. I'm willing to live with druggies killing each other in Detroit if it means I pay lower taxes.

[kentonio]

Typical ridiculously selfish right wing US outlook. Crime and poverty cost YOU money ffs, as does other people not having healthcare. Maybe if you ever grow up and realize that the modern world is completely interconnected you might actually end up with a less damaged country.

[regexcellent]

Apparently it costs us a lot less than your healthcare and welfare seeing how much wealthier America is than Britain.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=gdp+per+capita+america%2C+gdp+per+capita+britain

[Jon Miller]

Huh?

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=health+care+spending+per+capita+america%2C+health+care+spending+per+capita+britain

And their health care is much better than ours.

I agree that doesn't give parity, but I would argue that it approaches parity for a large number of people.

"The United States spent $10,240 per student from elementary school through college in 2000, according to the report. Average spending among more than 25 nations was $6,361. The range stretched from less than $3,000 per student in Turkey, Mexico, the Slovak Republic and Poland to more than $8,000 per student in Denmark, Norway, Austria and Switzerland.

Australia, Finland, Ireland, Korea and the United Kingdom are examples of nations that have moderate spending on primary and lower secondary education but high performance by 15-year-olds in key subject areas, the report said.
.....
The United States spent 7 percent of its gross domestic product - the country's total output of goods and services - on education in 2000, the second-highest total among the countries. Within that total, the U.S. share of public spending on education was only average compared with the other countries, but the U.S. private investment in schools was high.

Viewed by level of education, the United States spends the most on higher education for every student and is a leading spender on primary and secondary education, the report says."

http://thebluesite.com/ustopseducationspend.htm

I think if you include our education system, suddenly we don't make so much more after all.

And in other countries, the poor (and middle class) have a lot more ease of mind.

JM

[kentonio]

America pre-Obamacare had 50 million uninsured citizens. UK has 0.

[regexcellent]

Uninsured doesn't mean "lacking healthcare." Also what we choose to spend money on (health care) doesn't make us poorer. It just means we buy different things.

I would happily go uninsured if it weren't for my university's requirement that I have insurance, and be no worse off for it.

[Al B. Sure!]

Frankly, even if the lack of welfare were the reason we have inner city violence, which it's not, I wouldn't give a ****. I'm willing to live with druggies killing each other in Detroit if it means I pay lower taxes.

You think it's druggies killing each other? You actually think innocent people are not being affected by violent crime?

What is your stance on foreign aid?

Why aren't you willing to live with Israelis and Arabs killing each other in the Middle East if it means you pay lower taxes, which you would?

[regexcellent]

It's not me being shot 'cause I don't live in Buffalo.

But it's all moot because the idea that welfare would solve crime is preposterous.

[Jon Miller]

Our system gives ****ty/expensive results in education/healthcare.

It is unrelated to our high GDP, and if anything harms it (money is going into inefficient things).

Why defend it?

JM

[Dinner]

It does make us poorer because it means our insurance pool is smaller so the per person costs are much higher. Also, unless its an immediate life threatening condition (as in you'll drop dead outside the doors) it does mean you lack access to health care. Emergency rooms can toss you out if you're not going to die immediately so you got a lot of people with chronic diseases which will end up killing them, like cancer or dozens of others, but since they're not in immediate danger of dying that minute they can't get care in emergency rooms. They will still die rather horribly without treatment though, treatment which costs more than the net worth of most Americans, and treatment they can't get. That's just morally wrong especially since there is a better & cheaper alternative used in every other industrialized country in the world.

[regexcellent]

Our system gives ****ty/expensive results in education/healthcare.

It is unrelated to our high GDP, and if anything harms it (money is going into inefficient things).

Why defend it?

JM

It is my opinion that we have the best healthcare and tertiary education systems in the world, not the worst.

Anyway, getting health insurance for gang members is not going to make them give up crime.