“These deadly gun silencers pose a huge risk to our enforcement and our communities and I will do everything I can to stop this ill-thought-out legislation that would allow more criminals to get their hands on these dangerous weapons.” – Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand vows to fight legislation that would ease restrictions on gun silencers [courtesy nydailynews.com]
You ain’t getting no silencers. Trump can’t even repeal Obamacare, moreover supports its bastard lovechild, or make the bane of daylight savings go away. Lame duck usually waits till the last year, not the first.
Sadly I think you may be right. There is no effort and will be no effort to actually hear the bills anyhow. Let alone pass them.
We need to ban ignorant Senators like this sorry excuse for an elected official.
Yes. The government is dysfunctional and the nation should be split up into different ones. Let the libs have their own craphole (I won’t call it a nation since it would obviously be a glorified economic zone open to everyone from everywhere) and the rest of us normal Americans have our own nation. No one is happy with the current arrangement and the fundamental political differences and outlooks are too deep to be overcome.
Dittos! Getting more ridiculous by the day. The libtards can have their own country and the rest of us can live-free.
That was the whole reason that the US was formed in the first place. Our forefathers created a “country” separate from ALL of the rest of the world of totalitarians, dictators, tyrannous bureaucraps, and their socialism/communism! There is no reason to carve up the US, what is needed is the removal of these fools from the gene pool. Socialism, communism, islam, fascism … are ALL a direct contradiction to our Constitution and God’s law, they have no place in a free “conservative” society.
They are legal most places now.
The ignorance is strong with this one.
She’s way overdue for a trip to the Clue Store. I bet she thinks a silencer will work on a revolver, to just make a little “pfft” sound when it’s fired. You know, like on TV. {eye-rolling smiley goes here.}
That’s where they get All their info about guns for example when they say like the wild west even though it was low crime.
And semi-auto pistols only work with low-power, subsonic ammo, needing the slide to be operated manually afterwards to chamber the next shot, since there isn’t enough recoil to operate the mechanism
r are we only talking rifles here?
“…that would allow more criminals to get their hands on these dangerous weapons.”
1) You spelled “citizens” wrong. But I’m guessing that was intentional.
2) A silencer is no more a “weapon” than a muffler is a “vehicle”
As long as Americans are allowed to own lathes, drill presses and milling machines, criminals will be able to easily make their own weapons.
We need to ban the ownership of such dangerous devices. For The Children !
Don’t give them any ideas.
They need to ban thought.
BAN MUFFLERS! (It’s for the children. And because loud noise is not health issue.)
When she says “criminals” she doesn’t mean actual criminals, she’s talking about people like you and me. Think about that for a minute.
The stupid is especially strong with this one…..
What, you don’t think a suppressor is a “weapon” as the senator thinks? LOL. She definitely isn’t very bright. And the Dem’s think she might be a POTUS candidate in ’20, that’s how weak their bench is.
So why not go in-between, make it so its illegal to sell it without doing a transfer like you do a gun and they can keep records of who has it at any time. You can not sell it face to face with no transfer. But get rid of the federal 9 month wait 200 dollar tax stamp.
Because the $200 tax stamp makes it too expensive for criminals to be able to afford the $800 silencer. The logic is irrefutable….
The 200 dollar tax stamp makes it so the crimina can’t afford the 800 dollar silencer that he could make a disposable version of for 60 bucks in his garage.
I finished it for you:).
Are you seriously suggesting that criminals don’t obey the laws? How dare you…. 🙂
Or just thread up a little chuck of scrap and screw it onto an oil filter. Cost: 0 + whatever one chooses to pay for the filter…
Thank you for the concept conclusion.
Not-so-long-ago someone made a device that replaced the barrel locking unit on 1911 .45’s with a screw-thread device that would accept a two-liter plastic bottle.
“Just sayin’ “
Compromising with the government on our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is exactly what got us to this point in the first place. There is no compromise in a well thought-out phrase such as “…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” [emphasis mine]
A suppressor is not an arm. Unless it is, in which case the Senator has an argument.
Neither is a barrel, but as a component it falls under the protections.
True, a suppressor is not an arm.
Then why is it more tightly controlled than an arm? It makes no sense, unless anything that has anything to do with an arm is, in and of itself, to be made illegal?
Like, oh, I don’t know, 3D printers, lathes, woodworking tools, foundries. Trees. Mines. Gee, the list is kinda long, when I think about it.
That makes the most sense, just treat it the same as a firearm — give it a serial number and do a firearm style transfer. Neither side will like that way, though.
Soooo…. the HPA then?
You have the right idea but you can never get a Republican to think ahead. Vetting all silencers used and new with the newly proposed law would have made it a lot more acceptable to many more people.
But lets look at the old law. It was designed to make it expensive and time consuming to get a silencer to keep them out of the hands of the shiftless and irresponsible street punks who is also an impulse buyer. Under the new law competition because of increase over the counter sales would lower the price tremendously especially when rip off copy cat companies start producing low cost junk good for a few shots at best. Then the real problems start with shiftless, low wage, irresponsible people buying them on the cheap and then selling them to anyone when they need beer money to get all drunked up on a Friday night so they can raise hell at the local bar. Meantime the crazies and street punk crooks can get the legal el-cheapo silencers and guns already threaded to go with them on every street corner. Any Moron can see where this would lead to. More crime, more murders and a panicked public demanding an end to all silencer ownership and the guns that go with them. Just what we need more gun bans that only came about because a bunch of Morons wanted to own silencers that they had no real need of to begin with.
Except that neither he nor you have the right idea to begin with, cisco kid. But, you can’t get a DemoKKKrat to think ahead, either. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to “vet” any silencers at all. We also know that when you say “many more people,” you’re actually talking only about yourself and a small circle jerk of gun-grabbing mongrels who will eventually fail at stopping this legislation, anyway. As well they should, too.
So, let’s actually look at the old law, for once. It was actually designed to make it expensive and time-consuming to get a silencer to keep them out o the hands of responsible people, because shiftless and irresponsible street punks can just get them, anyway. The new law would rightly do away with this arbitrary and ineffective system and, yes, prices would come tumbling down. As would supply, also, because of the coming influx of purchase orders. At least for a time, anyway. The real problems actually start with shiftless, low-information, irresponsible busy-bodies minding everyone’s business for them, having the audacity to THINK they even know what they’re talking about, when in all reality they damn well know they don’t even have a frame of reference for their demonstrably uninformed opinions. Much less any hard data to back them up. So, no, you won’t see much of anybody “raising hell at a local bar” with a silencer, or “more crime and more murders and a panicked public,” either. Mostly because, once again, there is literally NOTHING stopping this from happening right now. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nyet. Nunca. Cero. Get the picture yet? I doubt it. Oh, and need I remind you that, yet again, gun bans consistently go ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOWHERE on the national stage as it is? And all because a bunch of morons like you wanted to keep people from owning any guns at all because THEY personally happen to think that no one should own them. When, in all reality, their personal feelings are COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT, as are their personal concepts of “need.”
In response to cisco kid: I sincerely hope that you are being sarcastic, otherwise you are so off-base that Mother Jones magazine would call you a wacked out liberal.
She replaced Hillary as New York harridan, sorry I mean Senator. Improvement or worse?
They’re twins. Like the Harpys of legend, all are identical…
This woman seems to have difficulty finding two brain cells to rub together, much less generate thought. Evidently cogent, rational thought processes aren’t her long suit.
Her rant seems too well scripted to appeal to her base, for her to be fundamentally stupid.
She might not be able to quote dB reduction figures or explain what a Nielson device is, but I have no doubt she doesn’t really believe what she’s saying about silencers. I think she knows better, but the truth won’t get her any votes. This way she can play at being anti-gunner and anti-crime, instead of just the former.
She was actually PRO gun until she was elected Senator. She comes from Upstate NY where there are mostly gun friendly environments.
I was actually supporting her in spirit. Then she won the Senate seat and I guess she switched and became the Democrat her party wanted her to be.
She has turned into an idiot and turned on the people who elected her on her previous beliefs.
+1 Actually all politicians turn on those who voted for them. It is the only thing they are good at and do in a bi-partisan way.
I spy with my little eyes, a crazy bitch! Ever tried to conceal a suppressed pistol? Or draw one from said concealment? Doubt it. I want a can on my hunting rifles, especially my predator rifles, because wearing ear plugs is a horrible idea when hunting, but even a .243win or .223 fired without something to protect your ears will make them ring the rest of the day, suppressors can be a safety implement in several ways, when was the last “cold blooded murder” done with a silencer? Oh yea, in the movies!
Perhaps she’s watched too many gangster movies, which just proves the point: the bad guys are already doing it. Making it legal for the right reasons and the right people aren’t going to have an effect on what’s already going wrong.
As for the movies and television, in almost every case the firearms portrayed (without suppressors) appear to be at about the decibel level we would expect from a firearm with a high-quality suppressor. The actual intensity of sound from gunfire is routinely downplayed and I can think of only a few examples where it is even mentioned by the characters, much less accurately portrayed.
No wonder the Liberals fear suppressors – they think that if guns are only as loud as you see on film and suppressed guns are as silent as they see in the movies then you could shoot people all day and no one would ever hear it! You could be a mass-murderer and until you were seen shooting someone no one would know.
True in reality virtually any action hero should be deaf at this point.
And dead from a hundred other reasons!
It’s funny that a cartoon on FX has the most realistic take on firearm noise and its long term effects.
Mawp
She must be unaware of how prevalent silencers are right now. Also, it was my understanding that the legislation removed the paperwork and ran it through NICS while getting rid of the tax. Silencers are everywhere and in almost every gun shop. She seems to be purposely dramatizing this for disengenuous reasons.
“She seems to be purposely dramatizing this for disengenuous reasons.”
That’s what leftists do best.
They are also in every Walmart and auto parts store in the country, along with suitable adapters. Under $30.00. That’s where the criminals will shop.
“They are also in every Walmart and auto parts store in the country, along with suitable adapters.”
Really?
I know right where the silencers are, lots of them in the oil filter isle.
Please tell me exactly where the ‘suitable adapters’ are located?
You’ll find them over in the duct tape section!
Bat Shit called…they want their crazy back.
Which only goes to show that you don’t have to have a fully functioning brain to get into the US Senate.
Or to get a TTAG QOTD.
Reminder for those who need it: Democrats will Democrat.
Doesn’t this dingbat realize that a silencer takes the concealed out of concealed carry?
Question for any New Yorkers here: What is your plan for kicking that wretch out of office?
I’m a born-again Pennsylvanian, but I can answer on the behalf of my former he state: they have no such plan. NYC outnumbers the rest of the state, and they will continue voting for Chucky the Clown and Gun-grabbin Gillibrand until they die in office.
Yup. Same here – Pennsyltuckian by way of (western) NY. Don’t expect tools like CS and KG to be kicked out anytime soon. The NYC metro area, with it’s “enlightened” politics and politicians, dominates state governance much to the detriment of everyone living outside if it. It’s only going to get worse as the rest of NYS migrates out for greener pastures elsewhere. And that makes me sad.
Philly doesn’t quite have that level of dominance here…yet.
I might be too optimistic, but after last year’s general election, I think we might be going back in the other direction. Even Philly has some conservatives now. That whole Union Democrat thing that used to cripple the Commonwealth is starting to go away.
Life long Western New Yorker here. The plan is simple. I’m going to figure out how to obtain the powers of God Almighty, and I am going to will into existence about 6 million more pro-gun conservatives who live in upstate to vote these two clowns out of office. We will need that much to off-set the sinister influence of NYC’s huge population and it’s cancerous progressive politics. I’ll keep you updated on my efforts. Should be a piece of cake!
I guess that shows my ignorance then. Somehow I thought that NY, especially upstate NY, wasn’t so much itself culturally-hostile to 2A as much as a victim of having 2A-violative policies purchased for it by things like Bloomberg now or Sullivan long ago. (And that there were other issues upon which NYers could step up against Schumer and Gillibrand.) Apologies if my question sounded like it trivialized your plight.
No worries, your question was fine. Sometime take a look at the last gubernatorial county election map in New York State, it was almost identical to the county election map for the last election – upstate is red, NYC is blue. It does get somewhat annoying when gun owners lump us upstaters (and some parts of Long Island) in with the densely populated NYC liberal crowd, but what can you do. Gun ownership is alive and well in upstate, there just aren’t enough of us to ever mount a challenge to the NYC liberals.
“Senator” Gillibrand, if we let traitors like your get away with mowing citizen’s rights, then *The Russians Will Have Won!*
Within neither the quote nor the source article can I find anything about the Russians.
Fine, then. It’s for the children!
Swarf: She’s not ignorant. She’s a liar and a tyrant. Kirsten Gillibrand is an intelligent, calculating woman. She’s not concerned about crime or murder rates, she is concerned about pushing her anti-liberty party platform, and specifically about restricting the God-given self-defense rights of her law-abiding constituents. She was my Senator for the 3 years I spent at Drum before I got out of the Army and moved to PA. Before that, when I still lived with my parents in the Binghamton area, I had Hillary. So no, she doesn’t need a white knight, yes she deserves hanging like all other tyrants, and yes she is a cunt.
Yeah… This “nerd” still weighs 210lbs with less than 10% body fat. (and likes to run in the trooper / armored divisions at competitions) But please, keep talking, you’re adorable.
When Schumer says jump, Gillibrand asks how high. She has never really had much of a mind of her own, and as the years have gone on, she’s only become more and more of a lackey to Schumer.
I’m always amazed when Statists here, who would #filate the entire continent of Europe if they could, go ape shit crazy when we try to emulate the one thing Europe got ballistically correct: Not using a suppressor is considered in very poor taste and suppressor’s are not nearly as difficult to get as they are in the USA.
Law-abiding means obeying laws, even a law denies the right to bear arms, right? So maybe democrats have a point after all and law-abiding citizens should not have guns.
Well, at least for me, “law abiding” refers to obeying CONSTITUTIONAL laws, which does NOT mean that law abiding citizens should not have guns!
You mean the LAWS, as opposed to “codes” correct? As in the Uniform Commercial CODES, the _your state name here_CODES Aannotated, etc? Which all hide under the curtsy little label; “statutes”. Want to do something fun? Download your state’s codes annotated, the statutes of your State. Search for the term “statute”.
For even more fun search for “statute” in black’s Law, the only place you will even find the word. See if you can make sense of it…
Here, I made a low effort comic of Sen. Gillibrand saying this…
http://i.imgur.com/AkCtq3d.png
lol
If Senator Gillibrand truly does not want criminals to acquire suppressors, where is her legislation to eliminate access to the myriad products in grocery stores and hardware stores that criminals can use to easily and quickly fabricate suppressors for a few dollars?
I support proposed “Heàring Protection Act”
That is the purpose of a gun muffler.
Any legislatior who thinks James Bond was reality should be recalled and let those capable of rational thinking take over.
She doesn’t think any such thing. She’s lying through her teeth.
I often wonder if the hosts of this blog need to shower a few times a day given the voice they provide the unhinged.
But on the silencer front, all the name calling and blindly slashing in any direction does nothing but hurt the cause. I have turned many a liberal mind with the realities of silencers especially for hunting. No exaggerated claims in either direction. No anger when they work through the scenarios of misuse. And no eye rolling when movie are cited as evidence.
A calm, well played argument will make the opposition come to your conclusion. But returning fire will solidify the ideology regardless of the truth. Especially if hateful rage by the pro-silencer zealot is used as powerful evidence as to why silencers should remain illusive and expensive.
So decide: do you want to win or do you want to fight. The silencer argument only has room for one.
Yeah, whatever you do, don’t call an @ss an @ss. It might offend @ss lovers.
I completely understand where you are coming from and in some cases that will work, but you have to also recognize hard core leftist are not open to hearing anything other than what they already believe to be facts. In all my years debating gun control and anything firearm related I have hardly ever resorted to name calling, insults, or with a condescending attitude. I have attempted to point out the facts and inform them but I would say only 2% of the people have actually maintained a descent conversation and actually considered what I had to say.
The majority of people like or or her supporters are going to think of you as a gun nut and will never give you the time to express your side of the issue. Perhaps this works on people you know on a more personal level and in person but not here on the internet.
Well DUH…New York values.
It doesn’t have to be correct, she just has to say it. It’s the same reason that rotten bi– Hildabeast continually said “gun violence epidemic” with that ignorant nod of hers…as if the stupid sheep of the nation would look at their spouse and nod in agreement. “Yup honey, she’s right. I’m voting for her”
As far as Trump, the dust hasn’t settled. There are still too many butt hurt idiots crying their eyes out. We will have to be patient.
Well I guess if I want a silencer. I’ll have to set up a trust and spend +800 to have a simple quieter .22. Someday.
In this case I agree with her 100 per cent. There is no legitimate reason to own a silencer as the risks to the public outweigh any of the propaganda the silencer companies are putting out.
Modern ear protection is more than adequate to protect ones ears.
The nose of a gun when hunting warns other hunters you are in the area and more than one hunter has been saved from being shot or did not accidentally shoot others because they knew other hunters were in the area. I have hunted for years so no one can bull crap me about this. People do become more vigilante and careful when they suddenly realize that there are other hunters close by.
If people can get silencers over the counter with no vetting on the second hand sales the crooks and crazies will have them within days.
Irresponsible hill jacks will think that just because there is less noise they can shoot in their back yards and stray bullets because of inadequate backstops will maim and kill hundreds of people every year.
For people contemplating murder they will be encouraged more to do this as they know beyond any doubt that they will be much more likely to get away with murder if their is less or no noise when the gun goes off. Ditto for armed robberies as well.
Back in the real world, some of us are still suffering from mild tinnitus because some idiot decided to light off a rifle at an indoor range during a ceasefire.
If you think suppressors make guns quiet, you need to get your head examined.
In the real world, some of us suffer from more than “mild” tinnitus.
You too? Let me guess, .38 and .357 back in the ’70s when “hearing protection” was unheard of? At least in Montana, I’d assume about the same went for Wyoming.
Its you not me who need to get their head out of their rectum. Try shooting an AR 15 converted to 22 rimfire with a silencer and then tell me it makes any noise. You could wipe out a crowd of people especially with traffic noise or even the normal noise crowds make talking before anyone even knew what was happening.
If that’s true, why hasn’t it happened yet? Silencers are very simple to make, and they are already available on the black market. Also the idea that you could “wipe out a crowd of people” with .22 is laughable. Yes, I know that .22 LR can kill a human. I also know that if it doesn’t hit you just right, you can take quite a few of them and be fine, as long as you get medical attention afterwards.
Perhaps a reality check is due here. NO matter what the caliber if you are not hit in a vital area you do not die immediately and has even included buck shot and shotgun slugs that the Police have hit people with. That does not mean that you totally recover ever. Lets take a few examples.
President Reagan came with 1/10 of an inch of being killed instantly but would it have mattered if a .45 slug had also missed him by 1/10 of and inch. Probably not as he would have survived if he got medical attention or may have died without it no matter what the caliber.
Jim Brady would have died instantly except for the fact that a devastator bullet was used that blew up on the outside of his skull. If he had been hit with a solid bullet it would have went right through his skull and killed him and remember we are talking about a .22 rim fire. Brady never recovered fully from his wound.
The guard that was hit in the shoulder hit the pavement like he had been hit by a bolt of lightening. He even spun part way around when falling. It could not have been more dramatic and he would not have collapsed any quicker even if he had been hit by a bigger caliber. Watch the video if you doubt my word.
The whole point being that the .22 rim fire is a hell of a lot more deadly than people think. Even a .177 caliber pellet gun has killed hundreds of children who though they were playing with toys and at extended ranges that would shock most people. One of the most dramatic and saddest was a young boy picking apples in the Cleveland area with a church group who was gunned down with a pellet gun in a drive by shooting. In another case a kid shot a young 4 year old girl while in a second story room out of his window. She was clear out in the yard and the pellet hit her in the heart killing her instantly. No it did not matter that the caliber was so small as the heart stopped and she died.
Many Poachers prefer the .22 rim fire because outside it is often difficult to hear it especially with back ground noise and with a silencer no one will hear it if using sub sonic ammo or even standard velocity ammo below the speed of sound. Again a guy shooting across a street into a crowd with a .22 rim fire would mow them down before anyone even knew what was happening. Again doubt my word, watch the Reagan assassination attempt.
The Result of the Reagan assassination attempt resulted in the Brady Bill and if a silencer had been used also that day you can bet silencers back then would have all been thrown right into the smelter because of the sensationalism of the crime. That’s been one of my main points on the new asinine proposed law because when thousands of them are suddenly out on the streets this type of thing will happen more than just once and then no one will be allowed to own them ever again.
cisco kid, it’s actually you — and almost no one else here — that’s projecting their own willful pig ignorance onto everyone else. Try actually taking your own advice, for once, and then come back and tell us how painfully wrong you are. You couldn’t wipe out a crowd of people, not even with traffic noise in the background, before anyone is the wiser — and you have zero evidence, empirical or otherwise, to support any of your claims. As IS usual.
Kiddo, I can make your ears ring just by cycling the action on an AR-15.
Son, you are about to get loved tenderly.
For people contemplating murder they will be encouraged more to do this as they know beyond any doubt that they will be much more likely to get away with murder if their is less or no noise when the gun goes off if they put a pillow in front of the muzzle when they shoot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnMeTlXsXC8
Your argument against silencers is nearly identical to the one used against the AR-15.
Your walking in your own manure. Read my above post about a silenced AR 15 in 22 rimfire. I have fired such weapons and I could wipe out a crowd of people before anyone even guessed what was happening.
Given the vary low velocity and vary low energy of subsonic 22LR (right at 700 Feet Per Second from a rifle length barrel, not a 10″ barrel) you must be quite the marksman to be able to take out a crowd with a 22LR.
The point I was making is you don’t need a suppressor to make a gun quiet, which apparently you didn’t hear that.
cisco kid, what’s actually happening here is that you are once again projecting your own willful pig ignorance onto others. Your post above is a demonstrable falsehood, as are the vast majority of your posts under every article you bother to troll. You clearly haven’t fired such weapons and you couldn’t wipe out a crowd of people before anyone was the wiser. Stop getting literally everything you know about guns from your TV, more commonly known as the idiot box (and for damn good reason), and join the rest of us ADULTS out here in the real world.
Awwww…… Lookee here, Elmer Fudd showed up to suk Gildebrand’s dick….
Meanwhile, in the reality that most of us occupy, folks who are out hunting, ASSUME that there are other hunters in the area, and don’t need to rely on hearing other gunshots to confirm that. The rules of gun safety apply just as, if not more stringently in a hunting situation – you know, the parts about know what is beyond your target and not pointing your gun at things that you don’t want to shoot.
Not to be too snarky, but if your gun handling in the field is predicated on, “Oh I heard a shot over there, I guess I won’t take a ‘sound shot’ at that moving brush.” then the presence or lack of suppressors isn’t going to improve a dangerous attitude. If you truly are a safe hunter, and still believe this, then you’re simply a Fudd.
Wow what a load of bull you just spewed in that comment. Wait, but we cannot call bull crap because you have hunted for years yet say ignorant things such as “the nose of the gun”. Do you also believe there are such things as assault rifles too?
Your evidence to back up your garbage is that it has saved more than one hunter? Or a person hunting did not accidentally shoot another hunter, yet this has happened so where is you evidence besides your own questionable experience as a hunter? Is that all you can come up with?
What about allowing hunters to communicate much easier since they do not have to hear ear protection. That can make hunting more safe for all and not just from the lower decibel level.
The crooks can make their own with parts from Home Depot right now for less than 100 dollars. Do you honestly think gang bangers are going to walk into gun stores and cough up 1500 on a suppressor for their 150 dollar stolen Jimenez or HI-Point handgun? Plus they have to also get a threaded barrel which is another cost.
You finish this pile of garbage off by exposing the fact you have zero knowledge on suppressors. You said “murder they will be encouraged more to do this as they know beyond any doubt that they will be much more likely to get away with murder if their is less or no noise when the gun goes off.” (forget the fact there are millions of ways to murder someone that does not involve a gun and actually will not make any noise)
REALLY??? NO NOISE?? Where can I get one of those suppressors? You don’t even know the decibel level of a suppressed firearm do you? If you stop getting your info from movies and actually did research you would know they are still quite loud, about the equivalent of a military fighter jet taking off 130 – 140 DB’s but safe enough for your ear drums. Live rock show is around 110 DB’s and a chainsaw is 120 DB’s. According to your logic I shouldn’t be ale to hear the band playing at a rock concert when I am at the back about 500 feet away. Now that you have the facts and the DB levels this also prevents you from claiming mass shooters can attack people and no one will know where the shots are coming from.
Defiant Deity, you did an excellent job of refuting all of his ignorant Fudd “points.” Thank you, sir or ma’am.
Don’t forget that to some folks stumbling around a few acres of trees constitutes hunting. Throw another in the mix and there’s a good chance they will be shooting at each other.
Either way you won’t hear the bullet if it hits you.
Don’t forget, Doktor, that stupid people will still be shooting each other exactly as often as they did before regardless of whatever laws are on the books. They just won’t instantaneously go deaf while doing it.
Either way, you seem to be just as ignorant as Gillibrand and cisco kid.
Don’t throw your horse manure at me as I have fired AR15’s converted to 22 l.r. with a silencer and again I could wipe out an entire crowd with one before they had any idea what was going on.
As far as hunting obviously it is you who does not have much experience. I have seen so many dangerous Morons out in the field I finally gave up deer hunting after one too many bullets were fired at me because someone thought the noise in the woods was a deer and not a human being. All we need is these Morons running around with silencers on their weapons.
Are you so dense as to not realize that you can hear a bullet if it zips by anywhere near you? I guess that’s never happened to you. It has to me, and trust me, you hear it regardless of the actual muzzle blast.
And again, when talking hunting rifles, a suppressed shot is still gonna be VERY audible, especially since virtually all hunting rounds are supersonic.
I really think you may be 100% full of crap and you are a troll.
cisco kid, the only one throwing any horseshit at anyone around here is, in fact, you and anyone who agrees with you. You clearly haven’t fired anything with a silencer on it (if anything at all for that matter), either, because you wouldn’t be able to “wipe out a crowd” before anyone is the wiser. You obviously watch far and away too many movies to have even the faintest clue what you’re prattling on about.
As far as hunting goes, obviously you’re projecting your own demonstrable pig ignorance onto the rest of us. You also must have been looking into the mirror when you saw any alleged “morons out in the field,” because you either refuse to wear blaze orange or have a nasty habit of not warning people that you’re approaching them. All we need is morons like you spreading your readily demonstrated ignorance on weapons — and silencers.
Excuse me home invader! Just let me get my earpro in so I don’t cause permanent hearing damage to myself and my family while fighting you off. Thanks so much! <3 <3
cisco kid, you must be trolling, right?
Right?
You forgot a couple: “The sky will fall, and the sun will stop shinning. OH, and a giant black hole will come and eat the whole planet.”
There, FIFY.
cisco kid, in this case, you are both 100% wrong. There need not be any “legitimate reason,” whatever that’s supposed to mean when you say it, to own a silencer in the first place. “Need” is and always has been completely irrelevant, and you have zero evidence whatsoever — empirical or otherwise — as to any alleged “risk” to the public. Whatever “propaganda” we’re observing actually comes only from you and people like you.
While modern ear protection is more than adequate, that’s completely besides the point. Neither you nor anyone else alive (or that is ever going to live for that matter) can come up with any moral or rational reason we shouldn’t be allowed to own them. And no, no you can’t.
What evidence, if any, do you have of anyone’s lives being saved because a gun wasn’t suppressed? Rhetorical question. I’m not holding my breath because none exists. I sincerely doubt you’ve ever hunted at all, and you’re bullshitting us about this — and you damn well know it. The exact same level of vigilance can be achieved when everyone is wearing blaze orange and has the wherewithal to check what’s beyond their target before pulling the trigger.
Criminals can, and already do, get their hands on literally whatever they want within days now. The insertion or deletion of any regulatory schemes cannot now and will not ever change this. Besides, criminals already don’t use silencers very much not because they are unnecessarily hyper-regulated but because they make their chosen weapons — handguns — that much more difficult to conceal and handle. Not that you would know this, naturally, having a demonstrably piss-poor understanding of guns, and their use, in general.
The behavior of irresponsible hill jacks will not change if silencers were suddenly available over-the-counter and, again, you have absolutely zero hard evidence — empirical or otherwise — that more people will die because of it. Period.
For people contemplating murder, they will actually continue business as usual because they won’t bother with a silencer — which does not at all make it any more likely that they’ll get away with it unless their closest neighbors are a mile or more away. Ditto for armed robberies as well.
You know nothing. You can understanding nothing. You are willing to learn nothing. Your words are nothing.
nice
“deadly gun silencers”
“these dangerous weapons”
Someone had better tell the good senator that a silencer is no more a weapon than a muffler is a car.
Since criminals already have everything they want – from guns and drugs to cars – by the simple expedient of getting them illegally, what makes this particular idiot think they don’t already have all the suppressors they want?
Just curious.
I cant believe that someone/anyone in the same room when she said this, didnt do the bullshit cough.
I TOLD you that giving women the vote would lead to this kind of nonsense. ?
Lol!!
When she represented a rural area for two years in the House, Gillibrand was A-Rated by the NRA.
She went full anti-gun retard when Schumer tapped(!) her for the Senate seat vacated by Hitlery when the Beast was appointed Secretary of State.
That idiot has no idea of the number of legally owned suppressors (or, tangentially, full-auto weapons) there are out there in public law-abiding hands. I don’t either but if you said it was more than 2 Million I wouldn’t be shocked.
That they’re even regulated now is proof positive that the freedom-grabbers POS communist globalist (D) have won. This is just more of the POS liberal_progressive_communist_globalist [and] (D) NY’s “We’re F’d up, we need to fix you” crap.
We (the U.S.) have already dedicated out country, its blood, and treasure, to wiping communism from the Universe. The only thing more evil are the POS that sell it, and radical islam.
You cannot ban your way to utopia.
The hilarious part is,
Suppressors are already banned in NY state, and the HPA will do nothing to lift the statewide ban.
So what’s all this noise about anyway?
Will someone please tell the Senator that a suppressor just might save a child’s hearing in a self defense gun use inside a home or a car? How about a pet’s? Please protect my poodle’s hearing!!!!
I thought the Russians won back in November.
American gun laws leave us scratching our heads here in New Zealand. The only bar to us putting a silencer on ANY rifle we are allowed to use, is the cost of threading the barrel and the silencer itself. There has been very little criminal use of silencers in my lifetime, only one instance comes to mind. That was a pistol murder for financial gain. It is illegal to carry pistols here, and that silencer was home made.Our Police are not seriously concerned on the issue of silencers.
There is only one problem as you cannot compare the society of New Zealand with the Murderous United States. It has one of the highest rates of violence and mass murder in the world so we are trying to compare two entirely different cultures. People in the U,S. are afraid even to go out their door to the mail box let alone venture out shopping even in broad daylight without being armed to the teeth. It has even become common for ordinary people to go about wearing bullet proof vests.
Europeans are very well aware of how dangerous the U.S. has become and many now will not come to the U.S. even on vacation because recently in Florida gangsters were deliberately targeting foreign tourists because they knew they would not be armed. Stay safe, stay in New Zealand because if you come here you may never get back home alive. If you want to go on vacation its actually safer to vacation in the Middle East. They, many times, have less gun deaths in their war zones than we have in Chicago on a normal weekend.
If that’s how you feel, please move to New Zealand. We don’t want you here.
Just the opposite I would like to pass a law that deports racists and Morons like you who refuse to accept the reality of your own country. You obviously live in a Conservative fantasy world where America is always right and every other country and race of people is inferior to America. Its obvious you have never lived in other countries and no even less about your own.
If such a law were ever passed, cisco kid, racists and morons like you who refuse to accept the reality that rest of us have long come to terms with would be deported. You are projecting your Liberal fantasy world onto us, where America is always wrong and every other country and race is superior to America. It’s obvious that you’ve never even set foot here, much less lived here, and know less than nothing about anything at all.
The actual problem here, cisco kid, is that his was a valid comparison between the regulatory schemes regarding silencers in New Zealand and These United States. The U.S. is actually 101st in the world from the top for homicides and falling, and actually has a lower per-capita casualty rate from mass murders than France. People outside the U.S. are too afraid to even leave their house to take out the garbage, let alone anything else even with soldiers deployed in the streets because they have no legal way of defending themselves. Body armor is also legal in many E.U. member states, and every day Europeans do buy it like it’s no big deal.
Americans are actually very well aware of how dangerous Europe has become, and how many will not go to Europe to even visit because, recently, Muslim extremists were deliberately targeting foreign tourists because they knew they were not armed. Stay safe, stay in the U.S., because if you go anywhere else you may not come back alive. It is actually safer to vacation in the U.S. Places like the Middle East many times have higher rates of homicides even outside their war zones than the vast majority of big U.S. cities do in a normal weekend.
Fixed that for you. You’re welcome.
Cut the your right wing bullshit. The U.S. has the highest gun homicide rate in the world. Even with the few terrorist attacks they have had in Europe we have killed far more people here in the U.S. by white natural born citizens slaughtering people at churches, abortion clinics, schools etc and that does not count the daily homicides in big cities like Chicago that have nothing to do with terrorism.
Its far, far safer to walk the streets of Europe at night or in the day than it is here in the U.S. I have been to Europe in Cities far bigger than Cleveland and I can tell you I would not walk the streets of Cleveland even in broad daylight and I have walked the streets in even East European Countries at night where one look at the women told you all you needed to know instantly that it was far safer to do so there than here. The women I observed even late at night were not looking at every man fearfully and also over their shoulders ever minute like they do here in the very dangerous U.S. I was never assaulted or even threatened there. In Cleveland there are sections of town you would not dare to walk at high noon. I would never even attempt to walk the streets of Chicago even with a bullet proof vest and two buddies all armed to the teeth.
And people starving to death in the Great Depression would not have had money to buy silencers since they were lacking money to buy even food. Perhaps that’s way over your head.
Lets face facts, the laws regulating silencers have proven with history that they work. The laws tracked all purchases new or second hand and made sure only law abiding citizens owned them through extreme vetting and weeding out criminals and nut cases and the average irresponsible person that does not have the intestinal fortitude to go through and pay for the paperwork.
The average Moron and street punk does not have the ability or desire or knowledge to even want to make his own silencer and when he buys the illegally manufactured one because he is a moron he soon leads law enforcement right to the guy who is making them. He does not stay in business very long. It does not take a genius to realize what letting loose tens of thousands of silencers on to the general public, not vetted, in second hand sales would result in many, many needless and unnecessary deaths and all for a product that no one really needs for any legitimate reason.
I would also have to say that even if the Feds did make them legal the States that have not already outlawed them soon would when the first sensational murders took place that would of course panic the public (and rightly so). Can you imagine the News Media going wild when some nut case starts mowing down a crowd of people with a silenced semi-auto Mac 10 or AR 15. Your right to own a silencer would not last more than a couple of days. And you can bet you would have to turn silencers in to be melted down. The problem is that it would not be just silencers. The average Conservative always proves to be his own worst enemy as what would happen would be that besides silencers being outlawed the Far Left would sweeten the ban by adding on as many semi-auto weapons as they possible could as well because they would know that it would be easy to do so when there was mass panic amongst the public all screaming to have something done right away. And remember this would be easier still because it would take place first on the State level immediately and then probably later on the Federal Level later as well which would mean no one in any State could own a silencer again.
As they say “be careful what you wish for” and it goes double with this new proposed idiotic silencer law as you will end up losing far more than just the right to own a silencer.
I think too the Republicans already have gotten themselves into so much political trouble over their desire to turn Health Care back over to the rapist Insurance Companies that fighting over something as asinine as legalizing silencers would be the last fight they would want to start. They are up to their ass in enough trouble already by trying to screw the very people that voted for them. Today the News reported the most people to be hurt and have their insurance rates raised the most would be the poor white rural people, the very people who voted for Trump and the Republicans.
Cut your left wing bullshit. The U.S. is 101st in the world from the top in homicides and falling. Europe has always had a higher per-capita rate of fatalities from public mass shootings than the U.S., too. Black, natural-born citizens kill more people in churches, abortion clinics, schools, etc. than whites ever could. Both the numbers and harmonized rates aren’t even close.
It’s actually far and away much, much safer to walk the streets of America day or night than over there in Europe. You clearly haven’t been anywhere outside your own basement or done anything but spread provable lies and left wing propaganda. Women are not raped in broad daylight and en masse here as they are in Europe, either, and they are now looking at every man fearfully, day or night. And for good reason: the police are hamstrung by anti-white racists and left wing fascists (as if there’s any other kind) like you who don’t want anything at all done about problem populations that you allow to be in your midst, all in the name of liberalism.
And people starving to death in the Great Depression still did have silencers, as reports of poaching from the time do as a matter of fact show. Otherwise, silencers would not have been added to the NFA. Perhaps what’s way over your head.
Let’s face actual facts: the laws regulating have actually been demonstrated to be completely useless. The laws only tracked purchasers willing to do the paperwork. They do not now and have never at any time done anything to prevent criminals from getting them. Again, you have zero empirical evidence to back up anything you say.
The average street urchin does absolutely have the ability to make their own silencer. It’s not rocket science. Even so, it’s simply a lack of desire on their part, nothing more. It does not take a genius to realize that repealing the NFA would not even “let loose tens of thousands” of silencers “onto the general public” to begin with. And, again, you still have absolutely zero empirical evidence to substantiate ANY claims of increased crime. You also don’t get to dictate “need” in the first place, and “need” is still totally irrelevant.
You would also still have nothing to say no matter what the feds do, because you are intellectually incapable of making any salient arguments whatsoever. There is still (ad nauseum, ad infinitum at this point)absolutely no evidence anywhere that homicide would spiral out of control, either, and you know it. Can you imagine the egg on your face when people are still more than able to hear a suppressed subgun or rifle when a nut case cuts loose with it? There’s still all that egg on your face when a mass shooting happens literally anywhere, because any competent researcher knows that nutjobs are in fact drawn to the so-called “Gun-Free” Zones that your favored policies create. And you can actually bet that almost no one would bother turning their silencers in, either. After all, what are the fuzz to do? Imprison many more millions of people who have done absolutely nothing wrong? Sacrifice thousands of officers on the alter to the Far Left’s rampant stupidity as they either resign or end up dead in no-knock raids gone wrong? Of course, their lives clearly don’t now and have never, ever mattered to you, anyway. Such a ban would go nowhere, as this is and always will be a losing proposition for them, politically-speaking. History bears this out, should you ever bother to actually examine it.
As they say, “It is better to let others believe you are an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” That goes double for any wholly unsupportable claims of spiraling homicide rates for the simple removal of demonstrably ineffective and idiotic gun control laws.
What you “think” is irrelevant, because you’re wrong. The DemoKKKrats have already gotten themselves into so much political trouble over their desire to turn healthcare over to the rapist government that fighting something as inane as legalizing silencers would be the last fight they WILL ever start. The DemoKKKrats are actually up to their ass in enough trouble already by actively screwing the very people that voted for them. Today, the CBO actually reported that the most people to be helped and have their insurance rates lowered would be the very people who voted for Republicrats and Drumpf.
Before shooting off big racist mouth check facts or eat crow.
eporting. This makes the US appear relatively less violent from a statistical perspective.
the US has a much higher homicide rate than similarly “safe” countries.
Another difference between the US and other relatively safe developed nations is that the US has a much higher homicide rate than similarly “safe” countries. 14,827 people were murdered in the US last year. This is way down from the 24,526 US murders in 1993, yet still leaves the US at 4.8 murders per 100,000 citizens. In comparison, Japan has .4 murders per 100,000 residents. Germany has .8, Australia 1, France 1.1, and Britain–who has recently garnered media attention for being the most dangerous wealthy European nation– has 1.2.
Here is some info against your “alternate facts” Jethro the Excedrin Headache
the US has a much higher homicide rate than similarly “safe” countries.
Another difference between the US and other relatively safe developed nations is that the US has a much higher homicide rate than similarly “safe” countries. 14,827 people were murdered in the US last year. This is way down from the 24,526 US murders in 1993, yet still leaves the US at 4.8 murders per 100,000 citizens. In comparison, Japan has .4 murders per 100,000 residents. Germany has .8, Australia 1, France 1.1, and Britain–who has recently garnered media attention for being the most dangerous wealthy European nation– has 1.2.
HOW DOES THE CROW TASTE TODAY . NEXT TIME RESEARCH BEFORE SHOOTING BIG MOUTH OFF.
cisco kid, before you yet again project your own racism onto others, take your own advice — for once — and actually check facts or I’ll make you eat crow. Again. Still. More.
The U.S. has always had a higher homicide rate compared to other countries, even before any sweeping gun control laws were passed either here or any other non-peer country (i.e. all of them) you wish to compare. Additionally, direct comparisons are impossible to begin with. Nobody else has nearly the same gang problem we do. Nobody else has nearly the same illegal immigration problem we do. Nobody has the same : “justice” system, “education” system, demography, socioeconomic stratification, cultural histories, definitions for the same crimes, reporting and collating methods for the same crimes, etc, either. International comparisons are now, have always been, and forever shall be exclusively the bastion of the intellectually lazy and ethically and morally bankrupt. i.e. You. You are literally only capable of making Apples-to-Oranges omparison fallacies.
Oh, and by the by, the U.S. still has a lower rate of violent crime than most of the E.U., as well — and half the suicide rate of Japan.
1. UK 1,158,957 violent crimes – 2,034 per 100,000 residents
2. Austria 133,546 violent crimes – 1,677 per 100,000 residents
3. South Africa 732,121 violent crimes – 1,609 per 100,000 residents
4. Sweden 108,004 violent crimes – 1,123 per 100,000 residents
5. Belgium 107,885 violent crimes – 1,006 per 100,000 residents
6. Canada 306,559 violent crimes – 935 per 100,000 residents
7. Finland 41,664 violent crimes – 738 per 100,000 residents
8. Netherlands 111,888 violent crimes – 676 per 100,000 residents
9. Luxembourg 3,233 violent crimes – 565 per 100,000 residents
10. France 324,765 violent crimes – 504 per 100,000 residents
United States – 1,318,398 violent crimes – 429 per 100,000 residents
FY 2009 data, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
HOW DOES THE CROW TASTE TODAY? TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE — FOR ONCE — AND ACTUALLY DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH BEFORE SHOOTING YOUR RACIST MOUTH OFF.
Or, you could, y’know, just shut the fuck up, period, since we all know you’re never going to do any of that. Ever.
Like most ignorant super Nationalists you are too ignorant to realize when countries compile violent crime rates they use different criteria. If you were a product of higher education this would be statistics 101. In Denmark shouting at your wife might be listed as a violent crime if the police were called. In Russia recently a new law was passed giving the husband legality in beating the shit out of his wife.
Now my Southern Appalachian Moron this is one statistic you cannot distort and that is the murder rate. The U.S. out of 203 countries where murder rates were compiled ranked 14th which means there was an astonishing 189 other countries that had lower murder rates than the U.S. and the U.S. ranks No. 1 in Gun homicide rates.
Yes the U.S. is indeed one of the most dangerous countries on earth to live in and the murder rate proves it beyond any doubt.
Now Jethero who is eating crow. Hint try salt it might taste better for you when you eat it with your hominy and grits and do not forget to replace the toilet paper in the out house after you use it.
cisco kid, like most ignorant globalists, you are too stupid to realize that I already raise that point and used to it conclusively refute every single solitary talking point that you already pulled from the talking head presstitutes in the whorestream “news” media. If you were even enrolled at sk00l at all, you’d at least have sufficient reading comprehension to realize this. In the U.S., shooting at your wife would also be reported as a violent crime if the police were called. Whatever happens in other countries is still, as I’VE rightly pointed out to you before, completely irrelevant and inapplicable here. And still only serves to undercut everything you say, anyway.
Now, my Eastern European retard, this is the one statistic that you cannot distort: the U.S. is actually ranked 101st in the world for homicide rates, which means an astonishing 100 other countries had a higher murder rates than the U.S., and singling out “gun homicides” is nothing but a distortion and a Red Herring.
Yes, the U.S. is indeed one of the safest countries on Earth to live in and the murder rate proves this beyond any doubt.
Now, Vlad, who is eating crow? SURPRISE: it’s still you, as IS usual. Hint: try Tabasco, it might taste better for you when you eat with your turnips and potatoes, and don’t forget to actually wipe your ass, for once, after you’re done emptying into the local creek. You fucking savage.
I forgot to mention one more point against silencers.
Originally besides being used in wholesale murder the silencer was used by poachers. Once again if they become across the counter items poaching will reach astronomical levels as the poacher will immediately figure that “why wait for deer season when I can blast as many as I want and no one will hear me.
Hahahaha, when have silencers been used in “wholesale murder?”
Also, good to see that you find the idea of arresting peasants for shooting the king’s deer so palatable. Explains a lot.
Quote————Also, good to see that you find the idea of arresting peasants for shooting the king’s deer so palatable. Explains a lot.————-Quote.
Spoken like a true Poacher that has no respect for the law. Boy you fell right into the outhouse on that one.
“Spoken like a true Poacher that has no respect for the law. Boy you fell right into the outhouse on that one.”
Spoken like a true projectionist and a proven liar that has neither any respect for the law nor any respect for human life. Boy, you feel right into the latrine on that one.
You actually forgot to spew even more willful pig ignorance about silencers, cisco kid.
Originally, besides having absolutely zero evidence — empirical or otherwise — of their use in wholesale murder, silencers were largely only used by poaches during The Great Depression. Y’know, when people were actually starving to death. Not that you’ve ever cracked open a history book or anything, though, because otherwise you’d actually know these things. Once again, you still have absolutely zero evidence whatsoever to back any of the demonstrably unsupported — and wholly unsupportable — claims you’ve made under this and most any other article you’ve bothered to troll.
Do
Not
Feed
The
Troll
I’ve got to admit that sometimes I just cant help it. He is one of the more tireless trolls, and it allows us to practice our arguments. Besides, we get a cathartic release by bashing him, which is much cheaper than therapy.
quote————————————Cut your left wing bullshit. The U.S. is 101st in the world from the top in homicides and falling. Europe has always had a higher per-capita rate of fatalities from public mass shootings than the U.S., too. Black, natural-born citizens kill more people in churches, abortion clinics, schools, etc. than whites ever could. Both the numbers and harmonized rates aren’t even close.
It’s actually far and away much, much safer to walk the streets of America day or night than over there in Europe.
Let’s face actual facts: the laws regulating have actually been demonstrated to be completely useless. The laws only tracked purchasers willing to do the paperwork. They do not now and have never at any time done anything to prevent criminals from getting them. Again, you have zero empirical evidence to back up anything you say.
The average street urchin does absolutely have the ability to make their own silencer. It’s not rocket science. Even
You would also still have nothing to say no matter what the feds do, because you are intellectually incapable of making any salient arguments whatsoever. There is still (ad nauseum, ad infinitum at this point)absolutely no
As they say, “It is better to let others believe you are an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” That goes double for any wholly unsupportable claims of spiraling homicide rates for the simple removal of demonstrably ineffective and idiotic gun control laws.
much political trouble over their desire to turn healthcare over to the rapist government that fighting something as inane as legalizing silencers would be the last fight they WILL ever start. The DemoKKKrats are actually up to their ass in enough trouble already by actively screwing the very people that voted for them. Today, the CBO actually reported that the most people to be helped and have their insurance rates lowered would be the very people who voted for Republicrats and Drumpf.———————————–quote————————-
IMITATION AND PLAGIARISM ARE THE MOST SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY
I WAS FACTUALLY CORRECTING YOU, AS MUCH AS YOU WANT TO OH-SO-DESPERATELY WANT TO PRETEND ANYONE WOULD EVER FOLLOW YOUR PISS-POOR EXAMPLE.
You did not use any facts except to say you disagreed with me rather you plagiarized my entire post.
You didn’t use any facts at all, and instead outright refused delivery of any actual evidence presented to you by myself and others — and all while offering absolutely none of your own. I was simply trying to speak to you in a language that you’d actually understand, because anything said in plain English clearly doesn’t get through to you at all. Nonetheless, I DID factually correct you, and whether you liked the format or even accept that I refuted you or not is irrelevant and inconsequential. I did and that’s literally all there is to it.
You are a troll, but an entertaining troll. Reading your posts is like taking a trip to the zoo.
Hmm, I just started shopping for a good suppressor. Most of the suppressors I found only reduce the sound from a 9MM to 130 decibels. I have read that a rock concert is usually about 115 decibels. So, why do people act like a suppressor cannot be heard?
I also did some YouTube research. 😉 Apparently, a Twinkie makes a really good single use suppressor. So, why aren’t the Liberal Fascist trying to outlaw Twinkies?
You comparison is a laughable joke. I have been to many rock concerts and I have fired Mac-10’s in full auto in .380, 9mm and .45acp and they are no where near the level of noise of a rock concert. As I said before with background noise of traffic or a large crowd the silenced .22 would never be heard and the pistol calibers would not be loud enough to let the public know what was even happening until there were bodies lying in piles everywhere. That would be all it would take not only to ban all silencers but semi-auto weapons as well as a panicked public would demand action immediately and unfortunately this time they would get it.
Be careful what you wish for.
It’s official: you’re a lying troll. The Db levels mentioned are scientifically measured, meaning you are empirically wrong. I’ve also been paying close attention to your “speech” patterns, and I don’t believe you are even American. English is not your first language. I don’t think you’ve fired any of the guns you’ve mentioned. You’re probably a European trying to feel superior by talking down to a bunch of American idiots who know more about guns than you could ever possibly learn through The Trace and Hollywood. Because you clearly haven’t learned about guns through personal experience.
You show nothing but pure ignorance and prejudice. I am 68 years old, I was born in America. I have competed with shotgun, rifle and pistol. I have repaired guns, customized guns, manufactured custom made ammunition and conducted safety classes for firearms and have hunted both varmints, small game and big game. I know more about the gun business and gun culture than you will ever know in two lifetimes. And I am a radical left wing liberal, something totally unfathomable to the Far Right who believes that Liberals are all anti-gun and their enemies.
To educated your ignorance gun enthusiasts come from all professions and all walks of life and all political parties. As a matter of fact I have seen some very conservative people including Republicans that were gun haters and voted in Congress against firearms ownership. Something the far Right never admits to. In their ignorance they vote straight Republican never bothering to join the NRA which publishes info on how all Congressmen vote. As a matter of fact the Far Right is so ignorant they even rant against the very organization that has saved their ass for over 100 years. Perhaps it is because like many Conservatives they are too cheap to join the NRA and then through sub conscience guilt then rant against the NRA. I am willing to bet you are not a member.
I am far different than you because I was taught “how to think” not “what to think”. I call it like it is. I appreciate the contributions to the advancement of man from all Countries, all Religions and all Races. I am different from you as I hate no one group of people nor am I a blind Patriot that cannot fail so see when America was wrong and also when America was right. Unlike you I realize much of America’s greatest inventions and achievements came and continue to come from people not even born in this country. They were and are Immigrants, the very group of people you hate the most and the very people who made America great and continue to make it great not the people like Trump who are out to divide America racially and which will also destroy it in the name of blind greed and profit.
Naturally because you are a racist you concluded I am not American.
As far as the decibel ratings they are a joke most of the time. It depends how close you are to the speakers and how loud they have them turned up and even what kind of instruments they are playing at the time. The rock concerts I am speaking of were so loud you could not hear someone unless you shouted into their ear from one nose tip away. This in no way can even be compared to the noise a pistol makes with a silencer or even a Smith M76 if you even know what that is. So your decibel rating (even if they are not the Manufactures propaganda) are a joke and do not reflect reality. I have been there and done that so pander your manufacturers decibel bull and fantasy to someone else. You may have been born yesterday but I certainly was not.
Your posts are a laughable joke, cisco kid. You haven’t done anything of the sort, as actual empirical data says that guns are universally louder than any rock concert. As I’ve said before, traffic noise or any other kind of background noise is not enough to muffle the sound of any gun shot — even a silenced. .22 with subs. Even if such a thing occurred, which it wouldn’t, such a ban would still go nowhere. Gun control is and rightly has been for decades a losing proposition for DemoKKKrats, and history bears this out should you ever bother to actually examine it.
Be careful what you say. It is better to simply allow others to think you’re an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
its obvious you never used any time of silencer in your life especially on in .22 rim fire. I stand firmly by everything I said because I have used them and you sure have not.
It’s actually obvious that you’re only capable of projecting your own knowing, willful, and demonstrable pig ignorance onto everyone else here. Myself and others have conclusively proven that you know less than nothing about guns, gun control, or even Human nature in general — and everything else that is even tangentially related in any way, shape, or form. Period. You stand firmly behind all of the lies that you’ve told because you have done absolutely nothing that you’ve clearly lied about doing, know absolutely nothing about which you’ve falsely claimed to have experience in, can understand absolutely nothing of what you’re prattling on about, and are willing to learn absolutely nothing from people that have demonstrated themselves to be infinitely more knowledgeable than you will ever be, which means your words are absolutely nothing. Nothing of substance or consequence to anyone. You are wrong. You know you are wrong because you’ve been shown how and why you are wrong. You have always been and forever shall be wrong. Put down the shovel already, you’re only burying yourself ever deeper.
Please explain to me how me thinking English is not your first language, and therefore you are a European, is “racist?” Or at least I assume that’s the part of what I said that triggered that, since nothing else in my post was even remotely race-related.
See, that’s the thing: nothing in your reply was racist. He just desperately wants to project his own anti-white racism onto you and claim that you hate brown people. He’s clearly not an American, either, and he has never been here or done anything he claims to have done. He has zero hard evidence — empirical or otherwise — to prove a damn thing he says. All he has is pure conjecture, logical fallacies, lies, and psychological projection. That’s all he’s ever had and all he’s ever going to have.
More NY Fascism? Shocking…
http://www.ammoland.com/2017/03/new-york-ag-claims-no-right-taser-stun-gun-even-home/#axzz4bG6afjUt
Sadly, the same clueless Senator was on the tube screaming at the Commandant of the Marine Corps last night about sexual harassment and calling for heads to roll.
The Chiefs of the respective services don’t need knee jerk reactions from politicians. They are more than capable of figuring out what went wrong, and fixing it. However, that is not going to happen.
The politicians would rather grandstand in front of the TV cameras dressing down someone who can’t “return fire”, knowing that the talking heads of TV will then cluck their tongues and talk about how tough and brave the Senator was standing up against (insert your favorite cause here…gun lobby, military, LGBT abuse, Planned Parenthood defunding).
Meanwhile, the politicians ignore actually doing their job and figuring out how to keep America from going down the same route Greece, France, Italy, Japan, et al are going down with out of control spending, social programs that don’t work, but can’t be killed, and ever encroaching violence from various sources, external to the US and internal.
Quote—-Meanwhile, the politicians ignore actually doing their job and figuring out how to keep America from going down the same route Greece, France, Italy, Japan, et al are going down with out of control spending, social programs that don’t work, but can’t be killed, and ever encroaching violence from various sources, external to the US and internal.————–Quote————
Germany is the richest country in Europe and France not far behind. Both are Socialistic and their social programs have withstood the test of time, decades of time some stretching back to 1896 and with France 1949.
Socialism failed in Greece not because of the system but because no one was paying taxes to support the system.
Europe has largely spent their tax dollars on social programs to give free education, health care, earlier retirement and higher paid retirement than the U.S. The U.S. squanders most of its tax dollars on war and the military. The U.S. spend 596 billion on the Military last year while Russian spent a paltry 66 Billion that’s which means the U.S. spends 9 times that of Russia. Its not hard to see why the U.S. has no affordable Health Care or any affordable educational programs and the Europeans who spend far less on war have these programs.
In France they must pay benefits and unlike in the U.S. where companies like Wall-mart work people only part time which averages well below minimum wage to get around paying benefits. Recently an Exemption in France to the ban on Sunday work was lifted near Paris and the people working at the equivalent of a “Builders Square” were paid $33.00 an hour on Sunday and it was not part time work either.
Most European countries give 4 weeks vacation the day you start work as well as 30 paid holidays. In the worker slave state of the U.S. its gotten so bad many people now get no holidays, not even Christmas off and if they do get a holiday off many times its not even paid. Europeans who build up years of seniority in the companies they work for often can get as much as 3 months vacation in addition to 30 days of holidays. In Japan the newly hired employee gets 6 weeks vacation.
What is less know is that Americans sent to work for long periods in Europe by their America Companies often never return as they become citizens when they realize how much better off financial they are living in Europe in regards to retirement, health care, safety, vacation time , educational opportunities and family leave.
In Europe family leave has been in place for decades with as high as 1 1/2 years off for both husband and wife to take care of a child just born. In the uncivilized U.S. many women still get fired for being pregnant
France produced more high tech jobs in 2016 that the U.S. and it is roughly 50 times smaller and far less wealthy.
Finland went from one of the poorest European countries in 10 years to one of the Richest and they are Socialistic. There children are taught to speak 4 languages including Chinese. In the U.S. the Hillbillies are still screaming to make English the “Official Language” and the “only language” taught.
Norway has better and much more business opportunities than the U.S. has and they are extremely Socialistic. They score the highest “happiest” index in the world. Not bad for the mythical evil Socialist State. Reality is its envied by the rest of the world.
Most of the European Countries have free National Health Care and earlier retirement, and free education , even free tutoring for the children. In the U.S. with a property based tax system funding education the poor sections get little education as compared to Canada and Europe where education is distributed equally because it is not based on property taxes.
The U.S. has the highest gun homicide rate in the world compared to all other countries.
the US has a much higher homicide rate than similarly “safe” countries.
Another difference between the US and other relatively safe developed nations is that the US has a much higher homicide rate than similarly “safe” countries. 14,827 people were murdered in the US last year. This is way down from the 24,526 US murders in 1993, yet still leaves the US at 4.8 murders per 100,000 citizens. In comparison, Japan has .4 murders per 100,000 residents. Germany has .8, Australia 1, France 1.1, and Britain–who has recently garnered media attention for being the most dangerous wealthy European nation– has 1.2.
It is a myth that Europe is more dangerous because of terrorism than the U.S. According to this weeks reports White Racist terrorists killed at last count over 1,000 Americans as compared to the terrorist attacks in France last year that were just above 100. The later truck attack in France was not done by a terrorist but by a deranged young man with no links to terrorism and even if we wrongly include that the deaths were then only slightly above 200 compared to the 1,000 in the U.S.
Far from Muslims being a threat in the U.S. (they number 6 million) the real threat in the U.S. is its own terrorist natural born white racist citizens who shoot up abortion clinics, move down school children and slaughter people while they are praying in church. Jewish institutions , property and even grave yards this year have had now over 60 attacks by white Nazi and Confederate flag waving racists because under Herr Trump ” racism is now cool”.
In conclusion to your quote———–Out of control spending———-quote—- actually only applies to the U.S. Military Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us about so long ago and socially we have paid a heavy price for it by impoverishing our own people for the greed of the people in Government that feed off of the Military Industrial Complex whose business is making as many wars as possible and making them last for as long as possible, its exactly why the Vietnam war drug on for 10 years when it was obvious to all we lost it way before then.
cisco kid, socialism failed in Greece specifically because of the system. Neither Germany nor France are socialist, either. The closest one might get is Scandinavia, and even they roundly reject the socialist label — and rightly so. They’re not socialist.
Europe has only been free to spend their tax dollars on social programs, which they can no longer sustain by the way, because the U.S. has spent the defense budget they would otherwise have to spend to keep the Russians from coming through the Vulda Gap for the last 70 years. Oh, and by the way, “free” education and health care aren’t free. They taxed to the point where they’re practically not having children anymore, and a phenomenon called Demographic Winter is setting in. This means the rapidly approaching total collapse of their welfare systems, especially with the influx of openly hostile, unproductive, predatory economic migrants from the third world. The U.S. actually has less affordable healthcare because of government interference deliberately adding complexity and overhead to MAKE it exorbitantly expensive. Even so, people from all over the world still come here for their education, so it must still be the best in the world. NEWSFLASH: it is.
What is actually less known is that Americans sent to work in Europe for long periods often do return and never become citizens, because they actually realize they are worse off financially in regards to literally everything. And no, women do not get fired for becoming pregnant in the U.S. That’s patently untrue and you have zero evidence of anything of the sort.
Finland is not socialist, either, and they are rich because they actually have a government willing to let them exploit their natural resources. Unlike former “preisdent” Barry Soetoro and his imperial moratorium on drilling and pipeline construction here. Any hillbilly from the U.S. is still smarter than you, even if they do only know how to speak English. And no, Finnish children aren’t taught to speak four languages, either.
The U.S. has more and better business opportunities than Norway, and it’s still easier to start a business here than almost anywhere in the world. And, again, they’re not socialist, either. Nobody with half a brain gives two shits about a completely subjective “feelz index,” either.
Most of Europe has citizens that flock here in droves to receive medical treatment that they would have to wait many weeks, and often several months for, back home. And, again, NONE of that is “free”, either. They’re not even having enough children to replenish the tax base because they’re being taxed into oblivion to begin with. Remember that whole Demographic Winter thing I mentioned earlier? By the way, the U.S. sk00l system does NOT have a funding problem, being that the U.S. spends more than almost everyone else — and by a long country mile — and has poorer outcomes across the board than countries that spend less than half as much. It is a competency problem, one brought only by the federal government.
The U.S. is actually 101st from the top in the world in homicides — and falling.
The U.S. has always had a higher homicide rate compared to other countries, even before any sweeping gun control laws were passed either here or any other non-peer country (i.e. all of them) you wish to compare. Additionally, direct comparisons are impossible to begin with. Nobody else has nearly the same gang problem we do. Nobody else has nearly the same illegal immigration problem we do. Nobody has the same : “justice” system, “education” system, demography, socioeconomic stratification, cultural histories, definitions for the same crimes, reporting and collating methods for the same crimes, etc, either. International comparisons are now, have always been, and forever shall be exclusively the bastion of the intellectually lazy and ethically and morally bankrupt. i.e. You. You are literally only capable of making Apples-to-Oranges comparison fallacies.
Oh, and by the by, the U.S. still has a lower rate of violent crime than most of the E.U., as well — and half the suicide rate of Japan.
1. UK 1,158,957 violent crimes – 2,034 per 100,000 residents
2. Austria 133,546 violent crimes – 1,677 per 100,000 residents
3. South Africa 732,121 violent crimes – 1,609 per 100,000 residents
4. Sweden 108,004 violent crimes – 1,123 per 100,000 residents
5. Belgium 107,885 violent crimes – 1,006 per 100,000 residents
6. Canada 306,559 violent crimes – 935 per 100,000 residents
7. Finland 41,664 violent crimes – 738 per 100,000 residents
8. Netherlands 111,888 violent crimes – 676 per 100,000 residents
9. Luxembourg 3,233 violent crimes – 565 per 100,000 residents
10. France 324,765 violent crimes – 504 per 100,000 residents
United States – 1,318,398 violent crimes – 429 per 100,000 residents
FY 2009 data, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
It is actually a fact that Europe is more dangerous because of terrorism than the U.S. According to reality, white racists haven’t killed 100 people in the last year, compared to the over 200 people killed in France by Muslim extremists (Nice was a terrorist attack).
The actual threat in the U.S. it its own black gang member citizens, killing at over five times the average white rate. Oh, and all of those supposed “hate crimes” by Drumpf supporters have actually turned out to be complete hoaxes. If anything, there have actually been credible hate crimes committed against Drumpf supporters, not the other way around — because of Herr Shillary, racism is now cool.
In conclusion, the out-of-control spending actually applies to the entirety of the government across the board. Including the same military-industrial complex that former “president” Barry Soetoro grew more than even Bushwakcer and Darth Cheney.
Anyway, whatever other countries do is completely irrelevant to this and literally any other discussion had here and is totally inapplicable here to begin with.
We are right. You are wrong. We proved it. You refuse delivery. Not our problem.
QUOTE——–cisco kid, socialism failed in Greece specifically because of the system. Neither Germany nor France are socialist, either. The closest one might get is Scandinavia, and even they roundly reject the socialist label — and rightly so. They’re not socialist.———-quote
I suggest you look up the definition of Socialism your reply is laughable. Germany under Bismarck back in 1896 started the socialist state. To suggest France and Germany are not socialist is ridiculous in the extreme. Because they have been successful you now deny they have been socialistic for decades. I am afraid you are refuting just about every economist on the planet that has studied the economic systems of Europe but of course you are right and they are all wrong.
Europe has only been free to spend their tax dollars on social programs, which they can no longer sustain by the way, because the U.S. has spent the defense budget they would otherwise have to spend to keep the Russians from coming through the Vulda Gap for the last 70 years. Oh, and by the way, “free” education and health care aren’t free. They taxed to the point where they’re practically not having children anymore, and a phenomenon called Demographic Winter is setting in. This means the rapidly approaching total collapse of their welfare systems, especially with the influx of openly hostile, unproductive, predatory economic migrants from the third world. The U.S. actually has less affordable healthcare because of government interference deliberately adding complexity and overhead to MAKE it exorbitantly expensive. Even so, people from all over the world still come here for their education, so it must still be the best in the world. NEWSFLASH: it is.
Again so laughable I do not know where to start. Our Health system has been raped by greed monger Insurance Companies and the Drug Companies for decades. There is no competition, there never was. When you have a monopoly they rape the people its just that simple. Every Industrialized Nation in the world does not base their Health System on an Insurance system and for good reason its profit oriented and when peoples lives are on the line heath care should not be rationed according to the ability to pay. That’s called being civilized.
Yes Europe does have more money to spend on its people because they do not squander it all on war. Europe has managed to stay out of wars and their people have benefited from it. Your Right Wing Fantasy about Russians pouring down the Vulda Gap shows again you know nothing about the balance of power in Europe or anywhere else. Russia pouring into Europe would result in all the European Countries going to war with them, they would have to for self preservation and many of them all have Nuclear Weapons. In other words with or without the U.S. the Europeans since the end of WWII would still be in the same position they are today. They spent less on the military and more on their own people. The idea that the U.S. is the savior of Europe post WWII is an arrogant Right Wing Wet Dream fantasy.
What is actually less known is that Americans sent to work in Europe for long periods often do return and never become citizens, because they actually realize they are worse off financially in regards to literally everything. And no, women do not get fired for becoming pregnant in the U.S. That’s patently untrue and you have zero evidence of anything of the sort.
Where do you live in a cave. Do you ever even to bother to watch credible News Media reports. The fact that U.S. women are decimated against when they become pregnant and are often fired (on trumped up charges of poor work performance) was the topic of discussion this year on more than one news media broadcast.
And I know that Right Wing people have a phobia about watching news programs from Europe or even U.S. News programs that broadcast specials on collaged graduates seeking jobs or people being sent overseas to work by U.S. companies. Facts are there have been numerous interviews with American Ex-Pats detailing their new lives in Europe and how they now consider themselves no longer Americans but citizens of their adopted countries. As one Female Ex-Pat interviewed on France24 News said ” I now consider myself French and yes it is more expensive to live here but considering the cradle to grave security I will never return to the U.S. and I will live longer just simply because of the more relaxed work atmosphere and the much better way we are treated in the work place. This is not an isolated interview as over the years there have been many specials on Americans going to Europe saying they have left and would never consider coming back. I might add that they have even done specials on American Men who fled to Europe and Canada to avoid the Vietnam war and after amnesty was granted to return few even considered coming back to the U.S. as they had careers, and realized how much better off they were in their new host countries.
Finland is not socialist, either, and they are rich because they actually have a government willing to let them exploit their natural resources. Unlike former “preisdent” Barry Soetoro and his imperial moratorium on drilling and pipeline construction. Any hillbilly from the U.S. is still smarter than you, even if they do only know how to speak English. And no, Finnish children aren’t taught to speak four languages, either.
Again I am not even going into your ridiculous statement that Finland is not Socialistic, what I will point out is that Finland is deficient in natural resources except wood and actually imports natural resources for their manufacturing industry. Here is a quote from and Article about Finland and its economy Quote:—–Although the traditional exports of paper and paper products and wood products remain important, heavy machinery and manufactured products now constitute the largest share of Finland’s export trade. Imports consist mainly of raw materials for industrial use, consumer goods, and mineral fuels.———-quote——
Finland’s higher education teaches children to speak German, English, Swedish, Russian and in the last 10 years Chinese. Finland has developed a thriving “information technology business” which required students to be able to communicate with customers all over the world especially with their prime customer China.
The U.S. has more and better business opportunities than Norway, and it’s still easier to start a business here than almost anywhere in the world. And, again, they’re not socialist, either. Nobody with half a brain gives two shits about a completely subjective “feelz index,” either.
I would not expect a uneducated hill jack like yourself to be aware of how important “the happiness index” is to society. Crime, murder, divorce, work place performance, social stability, racial harmony, are but a few of the benefits of a satisfied populous.
As far as business opportunities, yes there are more restrictions in most European countries but what the U.S. does not have is government help and cooperation with Unions and Businesses that form a policy of trust and cooperation for the economic benefit of both groups of people.
Most of Europe has citizens that flock here in droves to receive medical treatment that they would have to wait many weeks, and often several months for, back home. And, again, NONE of that is “free”, either. They’re not even having enough children to replenish the tax base because they’re being taxed into oblivion to begin with. Remember that whole Demographic Winter thing I mentioned earlier? By the way, the U.S. sk00l system does NOT have a funding problem, being that the U.S. spends more than almost everyone else — and by a long country mile — and has poorer outcomes across the board than countries that spend less than half as much. It is a competency problem, one brought only by the federal government.
Wrong again as most ignorant Conservatives always are. Its a myth Europeans flock here for treatment. That’s a laugh, Germany and France and Britain have the best medical care facilities in the world and do you think Europeans would be dumb enough to come here for treatment and go bankrupt in the process when they get it in there home country for free. Actually its just the opposite as many Americans are going to other countries for expensive operation because of cost and access to treatments not even available here. Why do you think Farrah Facet went to Germany for a last desperate chance to try and beat her cancer, it was she could not get the most advanced treatment for it here in the U.S.
As far as waiting many weeks, again more Right Wing horseshit. Serious illnesses are given priority In Canada and other countries and here in the U.S. by comparison you often can wait months for treatment. I waited 3 months just to see a specialist and waited another couple of weeks for treatment. I was lucky, I lived, but my fellow worker’s wife did not live, she died waiting just to have an office visit with a specialist. This is not to mention the U.S. health rationing due to the fact that many people cannot afford to go to a doctor so they put off treatment until it is too late. That is the worse type of health care rationing. In civilized European Countries health care is a natural human right while in the vicious and sadistic U.S. system the ability to pay because of blind greed rules the society. Most Europeans when they are told about health care conditions and bankruptcies in the U.S. are shocked beyond belief that the U.S. Government would murder its own people for the benefit of the greed monger Insurance and Drug Companies.
The U.S. is actually 101st from the top in the world in homicides — and falling.
Wrong again. Where to you get your bullshit from Brietbart? The murder rate out of 203 countries the U.S. rated 14th that makes 189 other countries safer to live in. Quote————
Another notable trend is that no European or Asian cities are in the top 50 deadliest cities. This complicates the picture of the US standing toe-to-toe with the industrialized world as a low violent crime nation. At the very least, the deadliest cities in the US have many more homicides than the deadliest cities in Europe and Asia. At most, the US is a in a pandemic of homicides, even while other types of violent crime are stifled.————–Quote
Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries, a new study finds.
Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States’ gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And, even though the United States’ suicide rate is similar to other countries, the nation’s gun-related suicide rate is eight times higher than other high-income countries, researchers said.
The study was published online Feb. 1 in The American Journal of Medicine.
The U.S. has always had a higher homicide rate compared to other countries, even before any sweeping gun control laws were passed either here or any other non-peer country (i.e. all of them) you wish to compare. Additionally, direct comparisons are impossible to begin with. Nobody else has nearly the same gang problem we do. Nobody else has nearly the same illegal immigration problem we do. Nobody has the same : “justice” system, “education” system, demography, socioeconomic stratification, cultural histories, definitions for the same crimes, reporting and collating methods for the same crimes, etc, either. International comparisons are now, have always been, and forever shall be exclusively the bastion of the intellectually lazy and ethically and morally bankrupt. i.e. You. You are literally only capable of making Apples-to-Oranges comparison fallacies.
And 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed by guns were in the United States, the study found.
gun-death-rates-chart.jpg
Erin Grinshteyn, David Hemenway/The American Journal of Medicine
Murder is the second leading cause of death among Americans aged 15 to 24, the study found. The research also showed that murder was the third leading cause of death among those aged 25-34. Compared to those in the same age groups in other wealthy countries, Americans aged 15-24 are 49 times more likely to be the victim of a gun-related murder. For those aged 25-34, that number is 32 times more likely, the research revealed.
Quote————Nobody else has nearly the same illegal immigration problem we do.————–Quote————-
NEXT YOU WILL TELL ME THE 2 MILLION IMMIGRANTS THAT FLED TO EUROPE AFTER WE OVERTHREW SADAAM WERE FIGMENTS OF EVERYONES IMAGINATION.
Glad to mentions illegal immigrants in the U.S. They have been lured here for years by greed monger corrupt businessmen that use them for slave labor and then pay millions to their corrupt Republican Prostitutes to prevent any meaningful immigration reform like a guest worker program that would make the greed monger corrupt businessmen pay minimum wage and worker compensation. Meanwhile illegal immigrant slaves pay millions in taxes that lowers the income tax bills for Morons like you who hate them and shores up Social Security funds that the immigrants are not illegible to ever collet and their cheap labor makes fruits and vegetables at the market place one of the lowest priced commodities in the U.S.
It is actually a fact that Europe is more dangerous because of terrorism than the U.S. According to reality, white racists haven’t killed 100 people in the last year, compared to the over 200 people killed in France by Muslim extremists (Nice was a terrorist attack).
Again you deliberately or Moronically blame and or distort all killings in Europe to terrorists. The Truck attack that killed 80 people was not a terrorist attack at all. This is proven fact. It was done by a mentally ill man that had been having mental problems and he was not linked to any terrorist groups at all. Rather he was looking to commit suicide by cop.
I might add that the latest stats on U.S. White Racist terrorists that shot up schools, churches, and abortion clinics now tops over 1,000 dead, that’s way over the 100 actual terrorist killings in Europe in recent years. That shows that your xenophobic racist beliefs based on the “Muslim boogey man” are not rooted in reality and you are many times more likely to be killed by White Supremacists’ than any from a Muslim attack.
The actual threat in the U.S. it its own black gang member citizens, killing at over five times the average white rate. Oh, and all of those supposed “hate crimes” by Drumpf supporters have actually turned out to be complete hoaxes. If anything, there have actually been credible hate crimes committed against Drumpf supporters, not the other way around — because of Herr Shillary, racism is now cool.
Again you must only watch Fox News as there so far have been over 60 attacks on Jewish centers just this year alone with painted Swastika’s all over the place not to mention attacks on Muslim Mosques as well. Under Herr Trump it has now become fashionable and cool to be racist. Wile Obama did everything possible to promote racial harmony Trump got elected on a campaign right out of Hitler’s Mein Kampf page for page which resulted in a racial divide this country has not seen since the early 20th century.
Quote——————–Oh, and by the by, the U.S. still has a lower rate of violent crime than most of the E.U., as well — and half the suicide rate of Japan.——————-Quote
Here again you in your ignorance do not realize that every nation has completely different criteria in classifying exactly “what violent crime is composed of”. In some countries simply yelling at your wife and then calling the police is logged in as a violent crime while in Russia last week they passed a new law making it legal for a husband to beat the shit out of his wife. All this makes comparing violent crime statistics very much of joke when comparing the various countries. What we can look at is death rates by gun fire and that you will find in my above post and the U.S.is at the top of the list.
Another chart showing Murder rate in U.S. compared to many other countries.
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/indy100/bkAvfB5lwx/27549-1pykz2g.png
And still another chart showing that 189 countries have lower murder rates than the U.S.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate
cisco kid, I suggest that you actually take your own advice, for once, and look up the real history of socialism before lecturing someone who already knows better than you. The rest of us are all busy laughing at you, not the other way around. To suggest that France and Germany are socialist is what’s actually ridiculous and extreme. They have only been so successful because they were rebuilt from the ground up by American money and defended by American hardware. You are actually afraid that I’m refuting just about everything you say, because most economists don’t even agree with you. But, of course, we are all right and you are wrong.
Our healthcare system has actually been raped by government bureaucrats for decades. There used to be competition, and now there isn’t only because government interference. Only the government even has the power to grant monopolies in the first place, so it’s actually the government that’s raping people. It’s just that simple. Every other industrialized nation actually has a private insurance option, and for good reason: when people’s lives are on the line, health care should not be rationed, period. It IS rationed under socialized healthcare, which is why people flock here to the U.S. in droves to escape waiting lists that are often weeks if not months long. THAT is what’s actually called being civilized
Yes, Europe does have more money to spend on its people because the U.S. has spent the bulk of their defense dollars for them. Europe has not managed to stay out of wars, either, by the way. They still just let us do the heavy lifting, now. Your Left Wing Fantasy about Russians not pouring through the Vulda Gap shows again that you know less than nothing about the balance of power in Europe or anywhere else. Russians invading Europe would actually mean America taking the brunt of it while our wayward Europe cousins got their own militaries fully spooled up. Oh, and the Euros would be far too squeamish to actually use the nukes that they have, too. In other words, without the U.S., the Europeans would not be in ANY position to fend off The Red Machine. The idea that the U.S. isn’t the savior of post-WWII Europe is an arrogant Left Wing Wet Dream fantasy.
You clearly live in a cave. You have no credible “news” sources to cite for ANY of your claims. The fact that U.S. women aren’t discriminated against when they become (because it’s patently fucking illegal in case you need another reminder) was a fact not overlooked in this or any other year, and on more than one “news” media broadcast.
And I know Left Wing people have a phobia about watching actually credible “news” programs either in the U.S. or even in Europe, but the actual facts are that scarce anecdotes like yours do not an argument make, and that most Americans that are sent to work overseas more often than not do return and don’t become citizens of another country. And that’s because they actually realize that they’re better off staying here in the U.S.
Again, you’re actually not going to try to refute my factual arguments because Finland isn’t socialist and you have zero evidence that it is. What I will point out is that Finland isn’t all that deficient in natural resources. Here’s a quote from an actual article about Finland and its economy: https://www.britannica.com/place/Finland/Resources-and-power And, no, Finish children are NOT taught four languages, either. Especially not Chinese. See, unlike you, I actually provide this thing called EVIDENCE! What you have NONE of! Novel concept, I know.
I would not expect uneducated Eurotrash like yourself to be aware of how unimportant totally subject feelings measured by an unscientific survey is to anyone. Crime, murder, divorce, work place performance, social stability, and racial harmony are but a few of things that cannot be objectively measured, defined, or investigated by such a survey.
As far as business opportunities, and that’s because the U.S. does have government help combined with fewer restrictions (at least for now), along with safeguards against both crooked unions and company bosses.
And I’m right again, as most Conservatives always are. It’s a fact that Europeans flock here for treatment. What’s actually a laugh is that the U.S. actually has the best medical care facilities in the world, and you clearly think Europeans would be dumb enough not to come here for treatment — and, no, they don’t go bankrupt in the process, either, because their governments pay for all of it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/12/19/the-ugly-realities-of-socialized-medicine-are-not-going-away-3/#16d53f063f2f So, no, it’s not the opposite: Americans stay here for their treatment, because why would they otherwise die while being stuck on a waiting list for treatment needed immediately. Again, scarce anecdotes like yours do not an argument, especially since the U.S. has THE highest 5-year and 10-year cancer survival rates in the world, bar none — and that’s because we have THE most advanced cancer treatments anywhere in the world, bar none. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596
As far waiting many weeks to months, again, more Left Wing denial. The average wait times in Canada to see specialists is absolutely insane. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/06/13/if-universal-health-care-is-the-goal-dont-copy-canada/#46f7bd2578d5 And no, you’re not seeing long wait times in the U.S., either, for the same procedures — unless, of course, you’re going through MediCare/MedicAid or the VA. Which, for all intents and purposes, are forms of socialized medicine. You would have waited at least twice that long in Canada, to do anything. Even a doctor’s appointment. This is not to mention that healthcare isn’t rationed in the U.S., like it is under socialized healthcare. THAT is the worst type of healthcare rationing. In the uncivilized European countries, healthcare is a cudgel used to subjugate their people. Here in the U.S., you don’t have that. Most Americans, when they are told of the conditions of healthcare in Europe, they are shocked beyond belief that European governments would murder their own people for the benefit of greed monger bureaucrats.
Right again, you mean. Where do you get your bullshit from, Bloomberg? The U.S. murder rate, out of 218 countries, is 108th. That makes 107 other countries more dangerous to live in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate This complicates the picture of the U.S. standing toe-to-toe with the industrialized world, because the U.S. IS a low-crime nation. And no, there is no “pandemic” of U.S. homicides, either — as homicides have consistently fallen for over a quarter-century without interruption. Do you even know what a pandemic is? No, of you don’t. Americans are less likely to be victims of violence, is what studies actually find.
And no, murder is NOT the leading cause of death for any age group, either. You can even crunch the numbers for yourself, if you could ever bring yourself to discover just how categorically wrong you are. https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
Illegal immigrants have actually been lured here by greed monger corrupt politicians that used them as pawns, and then get paid millions by their corrupt DemoKKKrat Prostitutes to prevent any meaningful immigration reform. Like limiting guest worker programs and H-1B Visas that are used by greed monger corrupt politicians to drive down wages in their districts. Meanwhile, illegal immigrants don’t pay any taxes at all and instead withdraw millions in benefits because morons like you won’t allow them to be deported so Social Security CAN be shored up against their burden on it.
Again, you deliberately blame the recent mass slayings in Europe on everyone BUT who actually commits them: terrorists. The Nice truck attack was, as a matter of FACT, a terrorist attack. This is a proven fact. It was actually done by an ISIS militant who swore allegiance to them right before.
I might add there is no source for an alleged “1,000” killed by white terrorists even in the last ten years, and any real number is well under the over 200 actual terrorist killings in Europe. That actually shows your anti-white racist beliefs based on the “White boogeyman” aren’t rooted in reality, and you are many ties more likely to be killed by Muslim extremists than any “White supremacist” attack.
Again, you must only watch Clinton News Network, as there have been zero “attacks” on Jewish centers this year — almost every single solitary “hate crime” reported by the “news” media have been hoaxes. http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/31/2016-the-year-of-the-hoax-hate-crime/ Under Herr KKKlinton, it has now become fashionable and cool to be racist — against white people and minorities who aren’t Left Wing morons like you. Barry Soetoro did NOTHING to promote racial harmony, and it’s Shillary that ran on a campaign right out of Hitler’s Mein Kompf word-for-word. That is what has actually resulted in a racial divide this country has seen since the 1950s.
So, there you go again in your ignorance conveniently ignoring the fact that I already pointed out that direct crime rate comparisons between the U.S. and the rest of the world are impossible, for the very same reasons that you directly plagiarized from me — and STILL show that you’re wrong. What can actually look at is homicide rates, and you will actually find is that the U.S. is nowhere near the top of anybody’s list.
In case you missed it, here is an ACTUAL chart listing the ACTUAL murder rates of the U.S. and the rest of the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate So, you can see that the U.S. is really 108th from the top — and falling.
Quote:——————————–Again, you must only watch Clinton News Network, as there have been zero “attacks” on Jewish centers this year — almost every single solitary “hate crime” reported by the “news” media have been hoaxes. ——————————Quote
I think this response really was over the top. You just made a complete fool of yourself amongst any sane and or educated person. Just this morning on Fareed Zakaria GPS they had a segment of the show that explored “the why” of the increased recent attacks on Jews in the U.S. And here is a link to Anti-Jewish attacks prior to 2016 (2016 stats will be out later this year but the MSNBC news reports over 60 attacks just in the last few months)http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445170/ I would suggest you get your head out of the ass of Fox and Breitbart News both of which has been discredited not only by every major U.S. News Organization and News Paper but also by such News Organizations of world renown prestige such as France24 News, DW News and the BBC of Britain. And that’s just a few of them. Impressive to say the least.
As far as teaching Mandarin to students even the “upper class in the U.S.” are now having their children in kindergarten taught Mandarin. To be able to get advanced high paying jobs their Children will have a great advantage in being able to speak and write it.
https://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/making-mandarin-mandatory-in-u-s-kindergartens/?_r=0
It is not unpatriotic to be fluent in other languages. Being fluent in other languages not only is an advantage to getting a job in the global economy but helps one better understand and write ones own language.
So as one can see its not just European Countries like Finland (and many other European Countries too) are teaching Mandarin, the U.S. and many Asian Countries are also teaching it, all of which realize the importance of such education in todays and tomorrows global economy in which China is playing an ever more important roll in the worlds economy.
Here in the U.S. Chinese and Spanish should become mandatory starting at kindergarten as the Latino immigration will soon make Latino people a dominate ethnicity in the American Government at both the Local, State and Federal levels. Just last year two of the top Presidential Contenders were of Latino origin i.e. Rubio and Raphael Cruz. Although they were both Conservatives the Liberal side of Latino’s moving into Governmental positions is being felt as well at all levels of government. In Florida many businesses will not even consider hiring you unless you speak fluent Spanish.
Health care systems differ, and there can be many myths about their pros and cons.
En español| How does the U.S. health care system stack up against Canada’s? You’ve probably heard allegedly true horror stories about the Canadian system — like 340-day waits for knee replacement surgery, for example.
To separate fact from fiction, Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., the director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research in Indianapolis, identified the top myths about the two health care systems.
Join AARP today – Receive access to exclusive information, benefits and discounts.
Myth #1: Canadians are flocking to the United States to get medical care.
How many times have you heard that Canadians, frustrated by long wait times and rationing where they live, come to the United States for medical care?
I don’t deny that some well-off people might come to the United States for medical care. If I needed a heart or lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather have it done. But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening.
The most comprehensive study I’ve seen on this topic — it employed three different methodologies, all with solid rationales behind them — was published in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs.
Source: “Phantoms in the Snow: Canadians’ Use of Health Care Services in the United States,” Health Affairs, May 2002.
The authors of the study started by surveying 136 ambulatory care facilities near the U.S.-Canada border in Michigan, New York and Washington. It makes sense that Canadians crossing the border for care would favor places close by, right? It turns out, however, that about 80 percent of such facilities saw, on average, fewer than one Canadian per month; about 40 percent had seen none in the preceding year.
Then, the researchers looked at how many Canadians were discharged over a five-year period from acute-care hospitals in the same three states. They found that more than 80 percent of these hospital visits were for emergency or urgent care (that is, tourists who had to go to the emergency room). Only about 20 percent of the visits were for elective procedures or care.
Next, the authors of the study surveyed America’s 20 “best” hospitals — as identified by U.S. News & World Report — on the assumption that if Canadians were going to travel for health care, they would be more likely to go to the best-known and highest-quality facilities. Only one of the 11 hospitals that responded saw more than 60 Canadians in a year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care.
Finally, the study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care.
Myth #2: Doctors in Canada are flocking to the United States to practice.
Every time I talk about health care policy with physicians, one inevitably tells me of the doctor he or she knows who ran away from Canada to practice in the United States. Evidently, there’s a general perception that practicing medicine in the United States is much more satisfying than in Canada.
The Canadian Institute for Health Information has been tracking doctors’ destinations since 1992. Since then, 60 percent to 70 percent of the physicians who emigrate have headed south of the border. In the mid-1990s, the number of Canadian doctors leaving for the United States spiked at about 400 to 500 a year. But in recent years this number has declined, with only 169 physicians leaving for the States in 2003, 138 in 2004 and 122 both in 2005 and 2006. These numbers represent less than 0.5 percent of all doctors working in Canada.
So when emigration “spiked,” 400 to 500 doctors were leaving Canada for the United States. There are more than 800,000 physicians in the United States right now, so I’m skeptical that every doctor knows one of those émigrés.
In 2004, net emigration became net immigration. Let me say that again. More doctors were moving into Canada than were moving out.
Myth #3: Canada rations health care; that’s why hip replacements and cataract surgeries happen faster in the United States.
When people want to demonize Canada’s health care system — and other single-payer systems, for that matter — they always end up going after rationing, and often hip replacements in particular.
Take Republican Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, for example. A couple of years ago he took to the House floor to tell his colleagues:
“I just hit 62, and I was just reading that in Canada [if] I got a bad hip I wouldn’t be able to get that hip replacement that [Rep. Dan Lungren] got, because I’m too old! I’m an old geezer now and it’s not worth a government bureaucrat to pay me to get my hip fixed.”
Sigh.
This has been debunked so often, it’s tiring. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, for example, concluded: “At least 63 percent of hip replacements performed in Canada last year [2008] … were on patients age 65 or older.” And more than 1,500 of those, it turned out, were on patients over 85.
The bottom line: Canada doesn’t deny hip replacements to older people.
But there’s more.
Know who gets most of the hip replacements in the United States? Older people.
Know who pays for care for older people in the United States? Medicare.
Know what Medicare is? A single-payer system.
Myth #4: Canada has long wait times because it has a single-payer system.
The wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system.
Wait times aren’t like cancer. We know what causes wait times; we know how to fix them. Spend more money.
Our single-payer system, which is called Medicare (see above), manages not to have the “wait times” issue that Canada’s does. There must, therefore, be some other reason for the wait times. There is, of course.
In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.
Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.
Yes, they chose this. In a rational world, those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, they attack the system.
Myth #5: Canada rations health care; the United States doesn’t.
This one’s a little bit tricky. The truth is, Canada may “ration” by making people wait for some things, but here in the United States we also “ration” — by cost.
An 11-country survey carried out in 2010 by the Commonwealth Fund, a Washington-based health policy foundation, found that adults in the United States are by far the most likely to go without care because of cost. In fact, 42 percent of the Americans surveyed did not express confidence that they would be able to afford health care if seriously ill.
Source: “How Health Insurance Design Affects Access to Care and Costs, by Income, in Eleven Countries,” Health Affairs, November 2010.
Further, about a third of the Americans surveyed reported that, in the preceding year, they didn’t go to the doctor when sick, didn’t get recommended care when needed, didn’t fill a prescription or skipped doses of medications because of cost.
Finally, about one in five of the Americans surveyed had struggled to pay or were unable to pay their medical bills in the preceding year. That was more than twice the percentage found in any of the other 10 countries.
And remember: We’re spending way more on health care than any other country, and for all that money we’re getting at best middling results.
So feel free to have a discussion about the relative merits of the U.S. and Canadian health care systems. Just stick to the facts.
Phantoms In The Snow: Canadians’ Use Of Health Care Services In The United States
Steven J. Katz,
Karen Cardiff,
Marina Pascali,
Morris L. Barer and
Robert G. Evans
Next Section
Abstract
To examine the extent to which Canadian residents seek medical care across the border, we collected data about Canadians’ use of services from ambulatory care facilities and hospitals located in Michigan, New York State, and Washington State during 1994–1998. We also collected information from several Canadian sources, including the 1996 National Population Health Survey, the provincial Ministries of Health, and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Results from these sources do not support the widespread perception that Canadian residents seek care extensively in the United States. Indeed, the numbers found are so small as to be barely detectible relative to the use of care by Canadians at home.
PROLOGUE: Over the past three decades, particularly during periods when the U.S. Congress has flirted with the enactment of national health insurance legislation, the provincial health insurance plans of Canada have been a subject of fascination to many Americans. What caught their attention was the system’s universal coverage; its lower costs; and its public, nonprofit administration. The pluralistic U.S. system, considerably more costly and innovative, stands in many ways in sharp contrast to its Canadian counterpart. What has remained a constant in the dialogue between the countries is that their respective systems have remained subjects of condemnation or praise, depending on one’s perspective.
Throughout the 1990s, opponents of the Canadian system gained considerable political traction in the United States by pointing to Canada’s methods of rationing, its facility shortages, and its waiting lists for certain services. These same opponents also argued that “refugees” of Canada’s single-payer system routinely came across the border seeking necessary medical care not available at home because of either lack of resources or prohibitively long queues.
This paper by Steven Katz and colleagues depicts this popular perception as more myth than reality, as the number of Canadians routinely coming across the border seeking health care appears to be relatively small, indeed infinitesimal when compared with the amount of care provided by their own system. Katz is an associate professor in the Departments of Medicine and Health Policy and Management at the University of Michigan. Karen Cardiff is a research associate at the University of British Columbia’s Centre for Health Services and Policy Research. Also at the University of British Columbia are Morris Barer, professor and director at the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research’s Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, and Robert Evans, professor at the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research’s Department of Economics. Marina Pascali is a Dallas-based health care consultant.
Surprisingly few Canadians travel to the United States for health care, despite the persistence of the myth.
Previous Section
Next Section
For more than a decade anecdotal reports of waiting lists for elective procedures in Canada and of hordes of Canadian “Medicare refugees” crossing the border in search of medical care in the United States have provided emotive fuel for critics of the Canadian health care system from both sides of the border.1 American opponents of universal public coverage have argued that global constraints on capacity and funding force many Canadians to cross the border in search of services that are unavailable or in short supply in their own country.2 Some have gone so far as to suggest that the widening health care spending gap between Canada and the United States is partly the result of counting expenditures by Canadian Medicare refugees in the U.S. rather than the Canadian expenditure totals, although there is an extensive body of evidence showing that the sources of the spending gap lie elsewhere.3
The Medicare refugee story is harnessed in Canada to promote the message that the Canadian health care system (known as Medicare) is chronically under-funded; the refugees are but one prominent symptom. The Canadian “under-fundists” are, however, divided as to the appropriate response. The many who support the fundamental principles on which Canadian Medicare is built argue that Canadian waiting lists and care seeking in the United States demonstrate the need for new public funds to increase capacity and services. While “evidence” in the form of Medicare refugees might be new, this debate about the level of public funding has been part of the dialogue between Canadian providers and provincial payers throughout Canadian Medicare’s history.4
But the putative refugees are also pawns in a debate driven by Canadian opponents of universal public funding, who wish to expand the role of private financing. This debate grew more intense during the 1990s as provincial payers increasingly constrained their health care budgets.5 News headlines suggesting that Canadians spend more than $1 billion annually south of the border have been cited to bolster the argument that private funding would reduce the pressure on the public system, thus reducing both public waiting lists and the flow of Canadians heading south for care. As a bonus, that $1 billion would stay at home.6
Unfortunately, this persuasive image of Canadian refugees survives in a virtual vacuum of evidence. How many Canadians actually head to the United States to seek medical care that they cannot obtain, or are unwilling to wait for, in Canada? What kinds of services do they receive? Where do they get these services, and how do they pay for them?
The paucity of answers to these questions is a result of large conceptual and empirical challenges facing researchers who attempt to fill in the gaps. Tens of thousands of Canadians enter the United States each year for a number of reasons unrelated to medical care seeking, such as holidays, business, education, or shopping. Any of these visitors might require medical care coincidentally while outside Canada. Thus, one must identify the context of Canadians’ medical care use in the United States to separate Medicare refugees from business travelers, “snowbirds,” and holiday seekers.
Paying for out-of-country medical care.
As part of a more widespread strategy to reduce public health care spending during much of the past decade, some provincial governments have imposed tighter limits on their financial liability for residents’ medical care received in the United States. Payment limits for emergency hospitalizations in 2000 varied somewhat across provinces: Per diem payments ranged from as little as Can$75 for residents of British Columbia to as much as Can$570 in Manitoba and Prince Edward Island. Outpatient emergency services are generally reimbursed at provincial fee-schedule rates, which are far below fees in the United States.7 But several provinces such as Ontario and Manitoba have also limited payments for outpatient emergency visits to as little as Can$50–$100. These restrictions have motivated more Canadians to obtain insurance for health care expenses incurred while traveling for extended periods in the United States.
In selected circumstances, more formal arrangements have been negotiated between provincial payers and U.S. providers. Provinces have always reimbursed individuals, subject to preapproval and negotiated payments, who are required to travel to the United States to obtain highly specialized services not available in their home province. More recently, several Canadian provincial payers have established temporary contracts with U.S. providers for specific services available but subject to unacceptable delay in Canada.
Research objectives.
In this study we attempt to quantify, across all sources of payment, the services provided to Canadians in U.S. regions located near the three most heavily populated Canadian provinces. Within these regions we examined data from two different types of sources: three states’ hospital discharge records and a survey of selected ambulatory care sites. In addition, we surveyed “America’s Best Hospitals” because they might serve as “magnets” for Canadians.8
Analytic framework.
Canadians might receive care in the United States for a number of reasons: (1) Services are available in Canada but often involve extensive wait times (wait-listed services). Examples often include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), radiation oncology treatment, and selected surgical procedures such as total knee replacements, cataract surgery, and coronary artery bypass surgery.
(2) Leading-edge technology services are unavailable in Canada. Examples include gamma knife radiation and proton beam therapy for some cranial tumors and specialized programs to treat severe brain injuries.
(3) Services are available in Canada, but U.S. health care centers are more conveniently located for some Canadians (proximal services). Examples include some residents of rural border regions in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, or western Ontario seeking primary care in U.S. settings; and some residents of urban centers such as Thunder Bay, Ontario, seeking secondary or tertiary care south of the border.
(4) Services are provided to Canadian snowbirds, who live in the United States during the winter months, or to other periodic business and leisure travelers to the United States (coincidental services).
(5) Services are available in Canada but are perceived by the patient to be of higher quality in specific U.S. medical centers such as those listed as one of “America’s Best Hospitals” (magnet services).
Across these categories, the sources of funding for care vary considerably. For example, patients in the fourth category will generally have their costs covered by varying combinations of provincial health insurance and private insurance. Services in the second category, approved by a provincial plan, would be paid in full by that plan at rates negotiated with the U.S. care center. Some services in the first and third categories may be provided under a contract between the provincial Ministry of Health and the U.S. providers. Other services in these two categories, as well as those in the fifth, require direct out-of-pocket payment by Canadian patients.
Sampling strategy and data collection.
From the American side.
Based on this framework, we developed a multiprong sampling and data collection strategy. We conducted a telephone survey in the fall and winter of 1998–99 of all ambulatory care clinical facilities located in specific heavily populated U.S. urban corridors bordering Canada (Buffalo, Detroit, and Seattle) that offered services that might be less available in Canada. These services included diagnostic radiology, ambulatory surgery, ambulatory eye surgery, cancer evaluation and treatment, and mental health and substance abuse treatment. Facilities performing these procedures were identified using a variety of federal, provincial, state, and local sources including local health care consultants and provider groups, the U.S. Federated Ambulatory Surgery Association, the American Hospital Association, the American College of Surgeons, and the SMG Marketing Group.
We performed a structured telephone interview of one or more key informants within the institution (typically senior personnel in billing, marketing, or public relations). Information collected included the number of Canadians who visited the institution in the prior year and whether there were any obvious trends, the nature of referral there, type of services provided, and methods of payment.
To examine inpatient care provided to Canadians, we acquired statewide hospital discharge data for 1994–1998 from Michigan, New York State, and Washington State. To differentiate care-seeking admissions from those related to coincidental activity, we categorized admissions according to admission status (emergency/urgent versus elective) and principal discharge diagnosis. Also, we attempted to contact key informants at each of “America’s Best Hospitals” to inquire about the number of Canadians seen in both inpatient and outpatient settings.
From the Canadian side.
We examined a number of different Canadian data sources to identify the extent of care seeking in the United States. We first analyzed data from the 1996–1997 National Population Health Survey (NPHS), a large survey representative of the Canadian noninstitutionalized population, that contained two questions pertaining to health care seeking in the United States. Respondents were asked: “In the past twelve months did you receive any health care services in the United States?” A positive response to the first question prompted a second one: “Did you go there primarily to get these services?”
An important potential source of Canadian patients for U.S. providers is formal contracts between them and provincial payers for specific diagnostic and treatment services. We identified the nature of these provincial contracts through personal contacts in the Ministries of Health of selected provinces. Finally, we spoke to the director of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association about the growth of out-of-country travelers’ emergency medical care insurance and insurance packages for services provided to Canadians in the United States on an elective basis. Unfortunately, one important source of Canadian data, provincial Ministry of Health expenditures specifically for out-of-country services, was insufficiently complete and comparable across provinces to be useable for this project. Remarkably, details such as patient demographics, types and dates of services, and location of U.S. providers are not being systematically tracked by most provincial Ministries of Health.
Previous Section
Next Section
Study Findings, By Data Source
U.S. ambulatory facilities survey.
Almost 40 percent of the facilities we surveyed reported treating no Canadians, while an additional 40 percent had seen fewer than ten patients (Exhibit 1⇓). Fifteen percent of respondent sites reported treating 10–25 Canadian patients, and only about 5 percent reported seeing more than 25 during the previous year (generally 25–75 patients; none reported more than 100). These findings were fairly consistent across the service categories. The overall response rate was 67 percent, and it varied across type of clinical facility from 56 percent for ambulatory surgery centers to 80 percent for cancer centers.
View this table: In this window
In a new window
EXHIBIT 1
Number Of Ambulatory Health Care Facilities Reporting Having Treated Adult Canadian Residents In Michigan, New York State, And Washington State In The Prior Year, By Number Of Canadians Seen, 1997–1998
If we extrapolate these findings (assuming that nonrespondents show a pattern similar to that of respondents), these facilities in the three large metropolitan areas combined saw approximately 640 Canadian patients for diagnostic radiology services such as computed tomography (CT) scans or MRI and 270 patients for eye procedures such as cataract surgery over a one-year period. By comparison, the annual volume for CT scans and cataract extractions averaged about 80,000 and 25,000 procedures, respectively, in British Columbia alone during the mid-1990s.9 In Quebec the annual volume during the same period for CT scans and MRI averaged 375,000 procedures and 44,000 procedures, respectively.10
We also sought to examine Canadians’ use of mental health and substance abuse services in these same three U.S. catchment areas, because previous reports in the early 1990s suggested a cross-border flow of patients for these services.11 Because these regions have large networks of community mental health clinics, most of which do not regularly see patients from outside their community catchment area, we could not readily identify providers that would be the most likely targets for Canadian referrals. Therefore, we approached all such facilities that we could identify. Using the American Hospital Association’s guide to accredited freestanding substance abuse and mental health organizations, we identified thirty-two organizations in the Detroit area but only three in the Seattle area. We received responses to our telephone survey from twenty-three of the thirty-two organizations in Detroit (72 percent) and from all three of the Seattle sites. All but one reported seeing fewer than ten Canadian patients in the prior year, and none reported seeing more than twenty-five. In New York State the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse collects data on treatment encounters at all centers in the state. From July 1997 through June 1998, 105,456 patients were seen, of which 246 were categorized as “other country.”
State hospital discharge data.
Over the five-year observation period from 1994 to 1998, 2,031 patients identified as Canadians were admitted to hospitals in Michigan; 1,689 to hospitals in New York State; and 825 to hospitals in Washington State. During the same period, annual inpatient admissions to hospitals within the bordering provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia averaged about 1 million, 600,000, and 350,000, respectively.12 Thus, Canadian hospitalizations in the three U.S. states represented 2.3 per 1,000 total admissions in the three Canadian provinces. Furthermore, emergency/urgent admissions and admissions related to pregnancy and birth constituted about 80 percent of the stateside admissions. Elective admissions were a small proportion of total cases in all three states: 14 percent in Michigan; 20 percent in New York; and 17 percent in Washington.
Principal diagnostic categories.
The distribution of diagnostic categories varied by the type of admission (emergency/urgent versus elective) and by state. Diseases of the circulatory system and injury and poisoning accounted for 37 percent of all cases in Michigan, 39 percent in New York State, and 50 percent in Washington State (50 percent, 23 percent, and 21 percent, respectively, of all cases within the elective admission category) (Exhibit 2⇓). Within the circulatory system category, the most common principal discharge diagnoses in all three states were acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disorder, heart failure, and conduction disorders and arrhythmias. In New York State, admissions associated with digestive disorders (such as cholelithiasis, gastroenteritis/colitis, and appendicitis) represented 13 percent of emergency/urgent cases. In Michigan, admissions associated with mental disorders (schizophrenic disorders, affective/depressive disorders, and substance abuse) represented 20 percent of emergency/urgent cases, and the number of cases within this category was much greater than in either New York or Washington. However, we were unable to obtain further details from ministry or state sources. The remaining cases within the emergency/urgent category were distributed widely across principal diagnostic categories, and there was no consistent pattern across states. The distribution of elective cases across clinical categories was quite broad, with no consistent pattern across states.
View this table: In this window
In a new window
EXHIBIT 2
Acute Care Hospital Discharges For Adult Canadian Residents In Three States, By State, Admission Type, And Principal Diagnostic Category, 1994–1998
America’s Best Hospitals.
Response from these institutions was low (eleven of twenty) and somewhat fragmentary. The numbers of Canadian patients seen in the prior year were generally very low: Six hospitals reported fifteen or fewer elective inpatients or outpatients; four hospitals reported 20–60 patients, and one hospital reported nearly 600 patients (90 percent outpatients and many related to proton beam radiation therapy for cancer).
Results from Canada.
Several sources of evidence from Canada reinforce the notion that Canadians seeking care in the United States were relatively rare during the study period. Only 90 of 18,000 respondents to the 1996 Canadian NPHS indicated that they had received health care in the United States during the previous twelve months, and only twenty indicated that they had gone to the United States expressly for the purpose of getting that care.13
Formal contracts.
Periodic formal contracts between provincial payers and U.S. providers have a long history, but a few such contracts have received considerable attention on both sides of the border.14 Most notable have been contracts for the provision of radiation therapy for cancer patients, in response to backlogs created by shortages of radiation technicians. For example, Quebec contracted with three radiation centers in Vermont and Maine in October 1999 for treatment of patients with breast and prostate cancer; 1,030 patients were treated during the subsequent year.15 Ontario contracted with three health care organizations in Michigan, New York, and Ohio in March 1999 to provide treatment for patients with breast and prostate cancer, and 1,416 patients had been referred as of 31 October 2000.16 This is equivalent to approximately 8.5 percent of all prostate and breast cancer patients treated with radiation therapy in Ontario during the same time frame.
Preapproval for stateside evaluation.
A relatively rare occurrence is preapproval for stateside evaluation of rare disorders or for experimental treatments not yet available in Canada. These treatments are often eventually adopted in Canada but diffuse less rapidly than in the United States. It is during that window between U.S. and Canadian adoption that occasional referral to the United States occurs. Examples of this include gamma knife therapy (a cobalt source is used to generate gamma rays that converge on a focal point) for treatment of cranial problems and brachytherapy (insertion of radioactive seed implants) for prostate cancer. Typically, a province the size of Quebec (approximately 7.3 million persons) may approve about 100 requests per year.17 Finally, in some provinces, contracts have been established between the provincial payer and U.S. primary care providers to provide primary care to residents of sparsely settled rural areas near the U.S. border. In New Brunswick (a province of 750,000 persons) this accounted for about 2,000 visits between 1996 and 1998.
Private insurance policies
Limits imposed since the early 1990s on out-of-province payments by provincial payers have motivated more Canadians to obtain travelers’ insurance for emergency out-of-province medical care. For example, the number of individual policies sold to Canadians increased from 700,000 to 2,800,000 from 1992 to 1999. However, we found no evidence that there is a demand in Canada for, or a supply of, insurance policies for elective medical care services.18 Some private insurance firms have expressed interest in offering policies that would provide service in the United States if one had to wait more than thirty days on a Canadian waiting list; however, there has been no apparent demand for such policies to date.
Previous Section
Next Section
Discussion
A tip without an iceberg?
This study was undertaken to quantify the nature and extent of use by Canadians of medical services provided in the United States. It is frequently claimed, by critics of single-payer public health insurance on both sides of the border, that such use is large and that it reflects Canadian patients’ dissatisfaction with their inadequate health care system. All of the evidence we have, however, indicates that the anecdotal reports of Medicare refugees from Canada are not the tip of a southbound iceberg but a small number of scattered cubes. The cross-border flow of care-seeking patients appears to be very small.
Our telephone survey of likely U.S. providers of wait-listed services such as advanced imaging and eye procedures strongly suggested that very few Canadians sought care for these services south of the border. Relative to the large volume of these procedures provided to Canadians within adjacent provinces, the numbers are almost indetectable. Hospital administrative data from states bordering Canadian population centers reinforce this picture. State inpatient discharge data show that most Canadian admissions to these hospitals were unrelated to waiting time or to leading-edge-technology scenarios commonly associated with cross-border care-seeking arguments. The vast majority of services provided to Canadians were emergency or urgent care, presumably coincidental with travel to the United States for other purposes. They were clearly unrelated either to advanced technologies or to waiting times north of the border. This is consistent with the findings from our previous study in Ontario of provincial plan records of reimbursement for out-of-country use of care.19 Additional findings from the current study showed that a small amount of cross-border use was related to proximal services, primarily in rural or remote areas where provincial payers have made arrangements to reimburse nearby U.S. providers. Finally, information from a sample of “America’s Best Hospitals” revealed very few Canadians being seen for the magnet referral services they provide.
These findings from U.S. data are supported by responses to a large population-based health survey, the NPHS, in Canada undertaken during our study period (1996). As noted above, 0.5 percent of respondents indicated that they had received health care in the United States in the prior year, but only 0.11 percent (20 of 18,000 respondents) said that they had gone there for the purpose of obtaining any type of health care, whether or not covered by the public plans.
Was our net fine enough?
This study might have underestimated the number of Canadians seeking care in the United States, for several possible reasons. First, a number of institutions did not respond to our survey. Those institutions might have seen larger numbers of Canadian patients than did the institutions that responded. However, persons contacted at nonresponding sites suggested to us that in fact they simply had nothing much to report. Second, we may simply have asked the wrong institutions and collected hospital data from the wrong states. It is possible that Canadians found their way to more remote sites not identified as magnet institutions. Indeed, we know that many Canadians receive care in Florida and California, for example. However, these are predominantly coincidental services. We could determine no logical reason why Medicare refugees would go further afield or to less prominent sites. Finally, it is possible that surveyed providers and administrative data did not recognize Canadians because they were using local addresses. This would be a limitation on any study of U.S. providers, for which the only possible remedy would be a costly individual patient survey. However, we have no information that would suggest that Canadians who seek care in the United States are likely to have U.S. addresses.
On the Canadian side, the surprisingly poor quality of some of the provincial data leaves open the possibility that some patients heading south for contracted services reimbursed by the public plans may have been missed if they were cared for in facilities that did not participate in our stateside survey. However, earlier analysis of Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) data found that most spending for medical and hospital services received by Canadians in the United States during the early 1990s was related to the “coincidental” basic and emergency health care services typically used by Canadians traveling or temporarily residing in the United States.20 Although the possibility of underestimating cross-border care seeking can never be entirely eliminated, we do not believe that its magnitude would be sufficient to challenge our conclusions.
Why is cross-border care seeking so low?
Our results should probably not, on reflection, be surprising. Prices for U.S. health care services are extraordinarily high, compared with those in all other countries, and this financial barrier is magnified by the extraordinary strength of the U.S. dollar. Private insurance for elective services, being subject to very strong adverse selection, is, not surprisingly, nonexistent. Discussions with key informants in the Canadian private insurance industry indicated that carriers correspondingly confine themselves to the coincidental services market. Furthermore, provincial governments have been lowering their rates of reimbursement and tightening preapproval criteria for cross-border care. In the absence of either source of health insurance coverage, it would be somewhat surprising if large numbers of Canadians were choosing to head south and pay out of pocket for care. In fact, one recent survey found that Canadians were not even prepared to pay out of pocket in their own country to reduce their own waits.21
What about Canadian contracts with U.S. providers?
The numbers of true medical refugees—Canadians coming south with their own money to purchase U.S. health care—appear to be handfuls rather than hordes. But there are still the highly visible examples of Canadian provincial governments contracting with U.S. providers for specific services that are unavailable or in short supply in Canada. While these contracts have received extensive press coverage on both sides of the border, they have largely been short-term arrangements for a limited number of procedures for selected patients experiencing delays in several Canadian provinces.22 Do such purchases indicate that the Canadian health care system is inadequate to meet the needs of its citizens and is critically dependent on access to the better-resourced U.S. system?
Well, yes and no. In the case of highly specialized and leading-edge or experimental technologies, this contracting policy is obviously sensible. It would be impossible for a country one-tenth the size of the United States (much less individual provinces) to try to maintain the capability to offer every conceivable form of care, no matter how advanced or unusual. Purchasing such services from a small number of U.S. tertiary centers that offer them, as indeed many U.S. payers do, is the only reasonable option. As and if the technology matures and its range of applicability expands, it may be disseminated to Canadian centers.
Cross-border contracting for services to augment existing Canadian capacity for commonly used technologies raises somewhat different issues. An important cost containment strategy in Canada has been constraint on the capacity of diagnostic- and treatment-related technology. Tight capacity is particularly vulnerable to unexpected surges in demand for care or a sudden loss of supply attributable to, for example, a strike by critical support personnel. The consequence is increased waiting times that at some point may be perceived as excessive by providers, patients, or the public. Selective contracting with U.S. providers has been a response to these concerns.
A case for long-term contracts.
As long as Canadian capacity remains tight for selected medical technologies while at the same time the United States continues to generate excess capacity, cross-border contracting appears to be a perfectly sensible approach to dealing with patient queues. It also offers a way of delaying capital investments in response to shifts in patterns of clinical practice until these have had time to establish themselves. As a purely economically motivated “make or buy” decision, it might even make sense to enter into long-term contracts for the purchase of services in the United States, as long as these contracts were available at prices above U.S. marginal cost but below the Canadian average unit cost. Such contracts would reflect not a “failure” of the Canadian system but simply provincial governments’ behavior as a “prudent purchaser,” taking advantage of the opportunity to “buy” more cheaply than it could “make.” Americans would also benefit. As long as their health care system is organized to generate excess capacity, they are clearly better off if the excess capacity is sold to Canadians than if it is left to sit idle or used to generate unnecessary domestic servicing.
The case against.
But there are other important considerations that would be raised by a long-term Canadian policy of importing health care services from the United States, even at favorable prices. First, patients may resist absorbing the monetary and nonmonetary costs of travel to the United States. Second, Canadian purchasers of U.S. services may be most vulnerable to loss of a contract or increased prices if U.S. domestic demand surges or supply decreases. Third, solving the problem of Canadian waiting lists by sending a regular wave of patients south would imply a major loss of income for Canadian providers. For all three reasons, this policy would be largely unacceptable to providers and patients, and, as a result, politicians would likely face an ongoing chorus of accusations that the system fails to meet the medical needs of their constituency.
Phantoms in the snow.
Despite the evidence presented in our study, the Canadian border-crossing claims will probably persist. The tension between payers and providers is real, inevitable, and permanent, and claims that serve the interests of either party will continue to be independent of the evidentiary base. Debates over health policy furnish a number of examples of these “zombies”—ideas that, on logic or evidence, are intellectually dead—that can never be laid to rest because they are useful to some powerful interests.23 The phantom hordes of Canadian medical refugees are likely to remain among them.
Previous Section
Next Section
Footnotes
cisco kid, whatever you think is over-the-top is irrelevant and inconsequential. Not just because it’s only your responses that are even over-the-top in the first place, but your responses are filled only with factually inaccurate tripe. Tripe that I have, incontrovertible and regardless of your baseless assertions to th contrary, conclusively proved is factually inaccurate. So, I would once again suggest that you take your own advice and get your own head out of your ass of CNN and MSNBC, both of them having been repeatedly discredited not only by every other major U.S. “news” organization and “news” paper, but also by other “news” outlets such as the BBC and even Al-GORE-Zeera. And that’s just a few of them.
Also, as I’VE already said, scarce anecdotes do not a (non)argument make. When it actually becomes a widespread habit that people are having their children learn Mandarin, which it hasn’t (but also something I wouldn’t be against), let me know. Until then, you’re WRONG. As you literally always are, have always ever been, and shall forever be.
I also never said, or even remotely implied in any way whatsoever, that it wasn’t patriotic to be fluent in other languages, either. Yet another Straw Man fallacy from you that I’ve broken down and swept aside. So, as one can actually see, you’ve only even proven absolutely nothing that you’ve claimed, because you also know absolutely nothing about anything you’ve ever talked about here.
Here in the U.S., a place that you’ve clearly never ever been to given you rote ignorance, Chinese and Spanish should not be mandatory starting in any grade. Period. Strongly encouraged, perhaps, but not compulsory. And no, Latino immigration will not soon make Latino people a dominant ethnicity anywhere in America — especially not the government. It will take a bare minimum of three or four generations before that happens. And that’s assuming there aren’t any major changes in immigration patterns before then. In Florida, many businesses do not even make being bilingual a requirement (or even a preference) for employment.
You clearly believe only in the Left Wing myths about socialized healthcare. There is absolutely nothing “alleged” about the horror stories concerning Canada’s socialized medicine. In all reality, it’s actually worse than what you’ve heard. Here’s some actual reports, accurate reports, detailing this.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/healthcare-wait-times-hit-20-weeks-in-2016-report-1.3171718
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2016
These separate fact from the total fiction injected by the likes of Dr. Carroll.
This is precisely why, in 2005, that the Canadian Supreme Court rightly decided that it IS literally a violation of fundamental human rights to ban private healthcare in Canada. Not that healthcare is a right by any stretch of the imagination (and it’s NOT no matter what anyone says), but, that’s another topic altogether.
And why is it that you almost never provide any links to the articles you’re supposedly quoting? It’s likely because they’re very easily picked apart by actually qualified professionals and researchers whose opinions aren’t out-right purchased by special interest groups. Inquiring minds want to know. 😉
In conclusion, there is NO credible argument to make against the full legalization of silencers. Any (non)argument referring to other countries in any form or fashion, for any reason whatsoever, is absolutely nothing but a Red Herring fallacy and a deflection from the unarguable FACT that there ISN’T. That’s not even to get into the fact that such comparisons made by your side are always factually inaccurate, regardless. Any claims of superiority of other economic models over free-market capitalism in ANY respect are a flat-out LIE. Civilized countries are NOT those that disarm their citizens, much less bar them from using their legally-acquired arms to defend themselves anywhere they happen to be. So far, you’ve only done a whole lot of nothing to reinforce your (non)arguments with trips out into left field with whorestream media presstitute talking points that have NOTHING to do with the topic at-hand, let alone their being laughably inaccurate in every way imaginable.
We’re still right. You’re still wrong. We delivered facts. You refused delivery.
Are you still going to prattle on about totally meaningless, factually inaccurate, and completely irrelevant bullshit and allow me to continue to make an absolute mockery of you and everything that you stand for? Or are you finally going to wake up and acknowledge the FACT that you have no argument to make in the first place, especially to people much too informed to be duped by gun-grabbing malcontents like you? How many times to I and others have to so thoroughly debunk every single solitary little Left Wing omission, deflection, exaggeration, projection, half-truth, whole-lie, delusion, myth, fairy tale, and dystopian fantasy before you realize that there is absolutely no way on Earth that you or any other Left Wing lunatic like you alive today can ever substantiate ANY argument that your lot makes against ANYTHING that you disagree with?
My guess is never, because you are clearly immune to facts and reason.
Most hill jacks like yourself know absolutely nothing about the history of any subject. If you want to know what course to take in the future chances are great something like it has already been tried in the past. Every Industrial Nation in the World since 1886 under Bismarck in Germany has had Socialism. It started with workers rights and unions and then progressed to health care. Many people do not like Germans but one thing no one can deny is that they are a very intelligent people and in 128 years of social programs they by now would have discovered if they were anywhere near the nightmare you believe them to be in your hillbilly ignorance. The fact is the social programs have worked for them and every other Industrialized Nation on earth and they all have been enjoying them for decades. Here the Republican Prostitutes of the Insurance and Drug companies make millions on their investments in those organizations. Why do you think the Republican are trying to turn the clock back and give health care back to the greed mongers in the Insurance and drug companies. Or is that way over your head.
And Jethro you asked for the links from the two lengthy posts I gave you. Well here they are. What wild excuses will you make now.
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html
and ——————-http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/3/19.full
I enjoy how you continue to confirm that you are not American with your bizarre slang terms. “Hill jack” and “Jethro?” Where do you get these terms, the old TV shows that are on one of the three channels in your shitty European 2nd-world nation?
When you point the finger at someone you have 3 fingers pointed right back at yourself. You just confirmed you are indeed a Hill jack because only a Hill Jack would refuse to believe that a fellow American would have a cosmopolitan view, interest and or knowledge of other places, societies and countries that are not in or near Podunk Junction U.S.A.
Go without Bud Lite for a year and save your pennies and go to Europe and see how civilized people live for a change and you will be in for a shock. People get full time employment there. The actually get vacations there. They actually get holidays off. Ask Wal-Mart worker drones if they get any of the above. If you live in America then you already know the answer to all of the above questions. Oops, I know you live in America because anyone that ignorant could not live in Europe. Even the Refugees just arrived know more than you do about Europe. The best laugh is the refugees know more about American than you do. I am not being facetious they can take a map of the U.S. and fill in all the names of the States. If you try hard you might be able to remember where yours Is located on the map.
If you watched some accredited News Programs maybe all these posts would not be such a shock. Try Fareed Zakaria GPS (I suppose you will claim he too is not an American). Try watching France24News (Francois Picard, ever heard of that American?) or DW TV (Carlos McDonald, ever heard of that American?)or NHK World. Or how about BBC or MSNBC. Is this getting too complicated for you?
Having knowledge of other Countries, Cultures, Societies, ways of life etc. etc. does not prove one is not from America rather it proves I am not living in Podunk Junction. Get out past the city limits some time. You might learn something about your own country and the rest of the people that live there. Try New York some time. Try California some time. Try Florida sometime. You just might discover everyone here in America is not Racist White Anglo Saxon Protestant. You next President some day just may Be Rubio or Raphael Cruz (King of Calypso) or would not it be a real gas if it were “Mohammed” whose parents were recent refugees from Syria. Boy would I love to see that. It would frost the balls of the Far Right every bit as bad as it did when John F. Kennedy the Catholic was elected President. And count on me voting for Mohammad just to frost your balls.
Haha, I’ve been to 25 countries on three continents, you nut, and I’ve lived in three. I speak two languages fluently and bits and pieces of a bunch of others. I’m from suburban New Jersey, and I’ve been to NYC more times than I can count. It’s a shithole, but they make good food. I’ve been to every major city on the East Coast. I live in rural PA now, because American cities are full of shitty, angry, anxious people, like every other city in the world. Sorry that my idea of living isn’t being in a giant concrete cocoon with no understanding of where my food, water, and power comes from. We weren’t designed to live in close proximity with so many other people, so far from our food sources. That’s one reason why urban areas have more crime, though I’m sure you have some fake news story to prove that somehow rural white folks are more violent.
Cruz’ first name is Rafael, with an f, not a ph, you jackass. You prove your ignorance with every off-kilter, ESL-betraying sentence you type. Even more that you try to use CNN as some sort of example of solid, reliable journalism. Good one! Even leftists don’t trust them anymore. Zakaria is a clown, just like Lemon, Cuomo, and the rest of that gang.
I’m half Sicilian, and by DNA that half has Jewish and Arabic blood, so nice try with the WASP comment there. My mother’s side has some English in it, sure, but also Irish and German, and pretty much everyone on both sides have been catholic up until my parents leaving the Church. Is being part of a gigantic, corrupt, authoritarian religious hierarchy supposed to make someone more cosmopolitan? You betray your own deep-seated bigotry and hatred of white Protestant Americans with every word you type. Also please show me how a single thing I’ve said in our poor excuse for a discussion was racist? I haven’t mentioned race once, in fact. You’re the one who’s so intent on bringing it up.
Oh, and I voted for Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz in the primaries. Yup, I’m a big ol’ racist! Tell me more about myself, please. It’s great entertainment!
And I hate Bud Light, so nice try again!
quote——————-Oh, and I voted for Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz in the primaries. Yup, I’m a big ol’ racist! Tell me more about myself, please. It’s great entertainment!—————————-
You fell right into the shit house with those lines. Trump and Cruz were the fighting for Racist of the year when they ran for president. As a matter of fact. Cruz even refused to meet with Muslim Americans when he was in the race. Brother you cannot get anymore racist than that and you voted for him. Fell right into that one didn’t you.
Islam isn’t a race.
Quote ————-I’ve been to 25 countries—————–Quote
Again you gave yourself away. Bombing people while in the military hardly qualifies you to know anything about them either let alone appreciate their culture. Try again, you bombed out on that one (pun intended).
I only fought in one of those countries. Try again, again.
I don’t have to try gain. You hung yourself. You admitted you voted for Cruz , a Racist and religious
bigot. You admitted you hated Islam. Why lie about what you are. None of you Hill Jacks will admit Muslims not only assimilate into the U.S. but they have been very successful at it. The entire town council of Michigan city is run by Muslims. Now if that is not assimilation nothing would be.
People like you are the same people who followed Hitler and constructed gas chambers. People like you are the ones that went to Vietnam and attacked a country that helped us and was our ally in WWII. People like you think that war solves problems (you participated in one) and of all people you should know you got screwed by your own government because war is enhancing the pockets of the rich and making them more powerful while its the working man who gets his head blown off.
Out of 532 Congressional families only one was dumb enough to send their kid to Vietnam. That should have told guys like you something but it went right over your head. Now the U.S. has made a political and economic mess of the Middle East and the situation there is far worse than if we would have kept out of the Middle East altogether.. If we had done so 3,000 Americans would never have died in 9/11. That was pay back for guys like you killing their women and children. Of course this is all over your head..
Where are several million more Jane Fonda’s when you need them most. Too bad there was only one back in Vietnam until too late the rest of the country woke up to the fact that everything she said was correct but later turned out was actually far, far,worse than even she could have imagined and she was years ahead of the average brainwashed hill jack. The only thing that the U.S. has been good at is brainwashing grade school and high school kids into patriotic robots. It takes a good liberal college to de-program them and that’s why 2 years of a liberal college should be mandatory for all kids and then we would not have anyone dumb enough to keep going to war to enrich the Military Industrial Complex and like Europe we would be spending our money on our own people instead of throwing it down the shit hole of useless and senseless immoral, obscene, unjust wars that only have bankrupted us. Military hardware does nothing to enrich the economy, it bankrupts it.
Its the peace solves problems and that prevents wars and its wars that promote more wars which accomplish nothing. The treaty of Versailles proved that one all too well.
cisco kid, most Eurotrash hipsters like yourself project your own ignorance of every subject onto everyone else that disagrees with you. If you want to know what course to take in the future, chance are likely that something that you want to try has already failed in the past. The Germans are actually now facing the nightmare that they have repeatedly been, despite your Eurotrash hipster ignorance. The actual fact is that social programs haven’t worked for them or any other industrialized nation on Earth, and they have been dreading them for decades. Here, the DemoKKKratikkk Whores of the insurance and drug companies make billions on their investments in those organizations. Why do you think the DemoKKKrats are trying to keep turning the clock back and give healthcare back to the greed mongers in the Insurance and drug companies as well as the government departments that are charged with regulating them but ARE instead beholden to them? No, that’s way over your head.
And Vlad, here are some actual links to the actual reality that the rest of us ADULTS have already come to terms with.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255510/
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2013/08/low-birth-rates-causes-consequences-and-remedies-becker.html
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865603669/The-potential-impact-of-falling-fertility-rates-on-the-economy-and-culture.html
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/birth-rate-declines-with-higher-taxes-is-hollywood-to-blame-for-divorce/
High taxes and economic uncertainty has in fact lead to low birth rates for such a long time that there is not now and has not been for many, many years enough young working people to sustain all of those social programs that have been parasitically feeding on them.
What wild excuses will YOU make now?
You have been doing absolutely nothing than pointing fingers at everyone else and spouting demonstrable lies and left wing delusions. You just confirmed that you are indeed a Eurotrash hipster, because only a Eurotrash hipster would refuse to believe that the average American doesn’t have a cosmopolitan view, and rightly doesn’t give two shits about what some ignorant foreigner like you has to say. Especially when ALL you ever fucking do is condescend to and insult people that are categorically better than you.
Go without your craft coffee for a year and pinch your (worthless) little pennies and go to America and see how actually civilized people live, and you will be in for a shock. People get full-time employment here. They actually get vacations here. They actually get holidays off here. If you live in Europe then you already know the answer to all of the above. Oops,I know that you live in Europe, because anyone that ignorant couldn’t live in America. Even the refugees that arrived know more than you do about both America AND Europe. The best laugh is actually that refugees know more about both America AND Europe than you do. You are being facetious and a LIAR.
If you ever watched some actual accredited “news” programs, maybe all of these posts would not be such a sock to you. Try watching some Stefan Molyneux podcasts (I suppose you will claim that he, too, is not a European.) Try watching some Lauren Southern, or Stephen Crowder (ever heard of that American?). Or, how about some Vice or OAN? Is this getting too complicated for you?
No one here even insinuated that having knowledge of other countries, cultures, societies, ways of life, etc. is proof of one not being from America. So, again, you’re fucking lying and projecting. Still. More. But, you HAVE in fact shown that you know less that anyone from “Podunk Junction.” You need to get out of your mother’s basement before lecturing people that have more miles on their hide than you could count on your fingers and toes. You might actually be able to bolster your (non)arguments with more than bullshit and hot air. You try New York some time. You try California some time. You try Florida some time. You might just realize that everyone here in America is not a racist, self-loathing Left Wing Anglo Saxon Catholic. Our next President will NOT be anyone that you would ever vote for. That will frost the (non-existent) balls of the Far Left every bit as bad as it did when Donald J. Trump was elected President. And count on your vote for “Mohammad” being wasted. 😉
You fall right into the latrine with literally every post you make. Neither Trump nor Cruz are even racist. Insensitive, perhaps, but not racist. As a matter of actual fact, Cruz didn’t have the time. Sister, you cannot get anymore racist than that, and you voted against him. Fell right into that one, you indeed did. Muslim doesn’t even describe a race, but a complete system of government disguised as a religion.
So, again, you gave yourself away. Wrongly assuming when and why people travel to different countries, when you DON’T know jack shit about them — or the countries they visited, either. So, no, you try again. And you Eurotrash hipsters voted for the current European powers that are bombing people right alongside the U.S. You quite literally bombed on that, too. 😉
You can continue to make a fool out of yourself, your good at that. You can continue to deny 131 years of Socialist History in Germany (that really took the cake). You can continue to deny that the Socialist Country of Germany is the richest country in Europe and by the way donates more money and a bigger percentage of its GNP to helping other countries than the U.S. does. As a matter of fact the majority of the major industrialized countries (all of which are Socialistic) spend more money on foreign aid that the U.S. does. That is a complete contradiction to your hillbilly rants about Germany going bankrupt. Far from it as Germany has made large loans to countries that have been having financial troubles in the E.U. If it were not for Germany the E.U. would not be solvent or even exist. Not bad for your hillbilly rants that Germany is going bankrupt.
Again you are an ignoramus of History. Every major industrialized nation is Socialistic to one degree or another including the U.S. That’s right Jethro, the U.S. is Socialistic too, its just that our socialistic programs are not as plentiful as other industrialized nations. I ask you Jethro , what is social security and who introduced it? It was introduced by the American Communist Party and is now considered as American as apple pie. You would have already known this if you had not flunked economics if indeed you ever even took the course to begin with. I could go on and mention Medicaid or Medicare or Unemployment Compensation or Aid to Education, the list goes on and on. I ask you Jethro what do you think these programs are, a form of Capitalism? Go back to school Jethro and quit making a damn fool of yourself, the rest of us are laughing at you.
You continue to project your own foolishness onto everyone else, cisco kid. You’re better at that almost anybody. You continue to deny 131 years of socialist failure in Germany, culminating in the outbreak of WWII when those LEFT wing fascists in the National Socialist Worker’s Party tried (and failed) to take over Europe, and that’s what took the cake. You continue to deny that Germany is the richest country in Europe because it’s not socialist, and that the U.S. donates more money, time, and materials to helping other countries, and even its own citizens, than Germany does — and by a long country mile. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/americans-are-worlds-most-charitable-top-1-provide-13rd-of-all-donations/article/2580876 As a matter of fact, the majority of industrialized countries (most of which aren’tsocialistic) spend less money combined on foreign aide than the U.S. does. That is a complete contradiction to your Eurotrash rants about Germany not going bankrupt. Far from it, as Germany is never going to collect on those loans, either. If not for the E.U., Germany would not have had to even make those loans in the first place. Not bad for your Eurotrash rants that Germany isn’t going bankrupt.
Again, you are simply projecting your own ignorance of history onto everyone else. Every successful industrialized nation isn’t socialistic, especially not the U.S. That’s right, Vlad, the U.S. isn’t socialistic, either. It’s just that your socialistic programs are sapping the money and the will of your fellow Euros. I’m the one that’s even in any position to be asking any questions, and I’ll be asking you why you think that Social Security is even relevant, nevermind the fact that it’ll be insolvent before 2040 because like ALL Ponzi schemes it’s unsustainable. It’s not, just like literally every other talking-head pressititue talking point that you’ve pulled out of your ass and that I’ve thoroughly picked apart. Social Security was actually introduced by the American DemoKKKrarikkk Party and it never considered very American at all and still isn’t today. So, I’m going to ask you, Vlad, being that again I’m the one in the position to even be asking questions at all: do you honestly believe that those programs are a form of socialism? No, you need to go back to sk00l, Vlad, and quit making such a damn of yourself. The rest of us are laughing at you.
You rated about European birth rated falling. Here is a quote from Fareed Zakaria today on why we need more immigrants and refugees. Its because the U.S. birthrate is now half of what it used to be and is no longer sustainable.
Also here is a quote on how the U.S. gives less to foreign aid than other countries.
NOW PAY ATTENTION JETHRO YOU READ BUT DO NOT COMPREHEND. THE U.S. GIVES LESS OF A PERCENTAGE IN AID OF ITS GNI THAN MANY EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. THE COUNTRIES ARE LISTED BELOW. YOU WERE LOOKING AT GROSS MONEY WHICH IS A DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH IS THE U.S. IS A PENNY PINCHING BUNCH OF HILL JACKS WHEN IT COMES TO THE OVERALL PERCENTAGE OF ITS GNI THAT IT GIVES IN AID. ITS LISTED BELOW. AND HERE IS THE ENTIRE LINK AS WELL.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/which-countries-get-the-most-foreign-aid/
However, the United States gives less as a percentage of its gross national income than other countries. U.N. resolutions have set 0.7 percent of GNI as an unofficial benchmark that developed countries should contribute to foreign assistance. According to 2015 OECD statistics, the U.S. contributes about 0.17 percent of its GNI, which is below the 0.3 percent that is the average for developed nations. Only six countries, all in Europe, have reached the U.N. benchmark: the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden. Sweden stands out, contributing almost 1.4 percent of its GNI to foreign assistance.
HOW IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE BANS WILL HURT AMERICA AND SOON.. JAPAN MADE THIS SAME MISTAKE.
America, Don’t Turn Into Japan: Stephens (quoted by Fareed Zakaria)
The United States risks turning itself into a Western version of Japan if it turns its back on immigration – and it would destroy itself in the process, writes Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal.
“A decade ago, America’s fertility rate, at 2.12 children for every woman, was just above the replacement rate. That meant there could be modest population growth without immigration,” Stephens says. “But the fertility rate has since fallen: It’s now below replacement and at an all-time low.”
“Without immigration, our demographic destiny would become Japanese. But our culture wouldn’t, leaving us with the worst of both worlds: economic stagnation without social stability. Multiethnic America would tear itself to pieces fighting over redistribution rights to the shrinking national pie.”
IN THE FUTURE PLEASE PUT BRAIN IN GEAR BEFORE RUNNING OFF AT THE MOUTH. TRY AND COMPREHEND INFO BEFORE YOU RANT.
cisco kid, I have already dictated to you how and why Europe’s birth rate is falling, and you HAVE again out-right refused delivery. The same thing is starting to happen in the U.S. for the exact same reason, too.
Also, here is an actual quote on how the U.S. gives more to foreign aid than other countries.
NOW, PAY ATTENTION YOURSELF, VLAD, BECAUSE YOU DON’T EVEN READ BECAUSE YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND. THE U.S. GIVES MORE IN AID THAN MANY EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. THESE COUNTRIES ARE ACTUALLY LISTED BELOW MY COMMENT. YOU WERE LOOKING AT MERE PERCENTAGE WHICH IS ACTUALLY A DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH, AND TRUTH IS ACTUALLY THAT THE U.S. IS A GENEROUS BUNCH OF PHILANTHROPISTS WHEN IT COMES TO GIVING AID. EVEN SO, THE U.S. ACTUALLY STILL GIVES THE MOST AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP, AS WELL, NOT ANY COUNTRY IN EUROPE OR ANYWHERE ELSE. THAT IS LISTED BELOW. AND HERE IS THE ACTUAL LINK AS WELL BELOW MY COMMENT.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-new-zealand-and-canada-top-list-of-world-s-most-generous-nations-a6849221.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-are-the-most-generous-people-in-the-world-2015-06-16
However, to Move The Goalposts by listing percentages of GDP is actually just a Red Herring and a lie. And that IS all we can ever expect from you, because that IS all we have ever seen from you, because that IS all you are literally capable of. You, and everyone like you.
And, like I’VE already said, it IS because of the outrageously high taxes and economic uncertainties (which ARE caused largely by outrageously high taxes) that lead directly to low birth rates. That is a large part of what has happened in Japan, as I’VE pointed out earlier to you above.
IN THE FUTURE, PLEASE TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE — FOR ONCE — AND PUT YOUR BRAIN IN GEAR BEFORE RUNNING OFF AT THE MOUTH. TRY AND COMPREHEND YOURSELF BEFORE LECTURING YOUR MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL BETTERS.
Quote————–
And, like I’VE already said, it IS because of the outrageously high taxes and economic uncertainties (which ARE caused largely by outrageous high taxes) that ——————–Quote
Your like most Conservatives, are a complete Moron. You scream about taxes because you are too cheap to pay them but do not realize your high taxes that you are paying already come from our obscene expenditures on the Military which is over half our tax revenue. Your such an idiot that you do not realize that without raising taxes we could instead use this money for Social Programs that we would use to help our own people.
The money we threw away on Vietnam alone would have paid for Social Programs well into the 21st Century. Your take home pay after taxes would have been the same if we would have spent them on Social Services instead of wars of rape, pillage and conquest that accomplished nothing except to bankrupt us because we still needed to spend tax dollars on social programs already in place. To do away with all social programs currently in place the entire country would cease to function. Where do you think the money comes from to run the country anyway, it comes from tax dollars.
The Conservative has always been his own worst enemy. He wants to save a penny today so he can go bankrupt tomorrow. When Obama wanted the “public option” which would have taken only a small amount out of your pay each month like Social Security does you would never have gone bankrupt when serious illness affected you but cheap ass Hill Jacks like yourself screamed from the rooftops that you would rather go without insurance and take your chances rather than spend a penny for health care. Brilliant.
And your reference to “economic uncertainties” go back to school Jethro economic uncertainties affect all nations during times of depression. Today German is the richest country in Europe and it has been Socialistic since Bismarck introduced the first Social Programs for German Workers in 1896. Not a bad system since its still going strong after well over 100 years. Where have you been all those years Jethero, hiding in a Conservative Cave oblivious to what the rest the Socialistic World has been doing all this time including the U.S.
P.S.: Multiculturalism IS an abysmal failure. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=07973B3FBED86C2AD9552B85CE88639E.f03t04?
cisco kid, I have dictated to you how and why Europe’s birth rate is falling, and you HAVE again out-right refused delivery. The same thing is starting to happen in the U.S. for the exact same reason, too.
Also, here is an actual quote on how the U.S. gives more to foreign aid than other countries.
NOW, PAY ATTENTION YOURSELF, VLAD, BECAUSE YOU DON’T EVEN READ BECAUSE YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND. THE U.S. GIVES MORE IN AID THAN MANY EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. THESE COUNTRIES ARE ACTUALLY LISTED BELOW MY COMMENT. YOU WERE LOOKING AT MERE PERCENTAGE WHICH IS ACTUALLY A DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH, AND TRUTH IS ACTUALLY THAT THE U.S. IS A GENEROUS BUNCH OF PHILANTHROPISTS WHEN IT COMES TO GIVING AID. EVEN SO, THE U.S. ACTUALLY STILL GIVES THE MOST AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP, AS WELL, NOT ANY COUNTRY IN EUROPE OR ANYWHERE ELSE. THAT IS LISTED BELOW. AND HERE IS THE ACTUAL LINK AS WELL BELOW MY COMMENT.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-new-zealand-and-canada-top-list-of-world-s-most-generous-nations-a6849221.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-are-the-most-generous-people-in-the-world-2015-06-16
However, to Move The Goalposts by listing percentages of GDP is actually just a Red Herring and a lie. And THAT is all we can expect from you, because THAT is all we have ever seen from you, and that’s because THAT is all you are literally capable of. You and everyone like you.
And, like I’VE already said, it IS because of the outrageously high taxes and economic uncertainties (which ARE caused largely by outrageous high taxes) that lead directly to low birth rates. That is a large part of what has happened in Japan, as I’VE pointed out earlier to you above.
IN THE FUTURE, PLEASE TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE — FOR ONCE — AND PUT YOUR BRAIN IN GEAR BEFORE RUNNING OFF AT THE MOUTH. TRY AND COMPREHEND YOURSELF BEFORE LECTURING YOUR MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL BETTERS. IN OTHER WORDS, SHUT THE FUCK UP, EUROTRASH, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
Look you numskull you cannot even get your nomenclature right. Its GDI numskull not GDP there is a huge difference between the two. You have to understand what the hell you are even talking about before you run off your mouth.
I never heard of a silencer killing anyone. Maybe I just don’t know, I thought the silencer attaches to a weapon, the weapon in turns does nothing but is stored someplace, neither one has the ability to pick itself up, load itself with ammo, aim, then squeeze the trigger. Maybe I am missing something, do the Russians have one?
Comments are closed.