I do work at a hospital, but I'm in IT doing logistics and purchasing support. So, yeah, I make sure there's scalpels in the drawer when a surgeon needs to cut you, but that's really as close as I get to a patient.
Do you do anything relating to life support systems, or are the machines you work with purely administrative?
I do work at a hospital, but I'm in IT doing logistics and purchasing support. So, yeah, I make sure there's scalpels in the drawer when a surgeon needs to cut you, but that's really as close as I get to a patient.
Holy shit. I was going to spend my Christmas eve with my aunt and uncle in Webster. I just called them and the're OK. That scared the piss out of me. Not sure about this evening though.
If only those firemen had been armed, this could have been avoided. Oh wait, that sounds just as crazy coming from me as it does coming from the NRA.
They may have been. I know a bunch of firemen who carry. Hell my boss is an ex-fire-chief and he's been selling firearms for better than 30 years. EDIT: Not sure if they are allowed to carry on the job, I doubt any of them would (guns and fire don't mix), but i'm not certain.
They must've been carrying something. Firefighting equipment itself can pack quite a punch. If carrying guns could have stopped this, I'd think a firehose would do just as well.
They must've been carrying something. Firefighting equipment itself can pack quite a punch. If carrying guns could have stopped this, I'd think a firehose would do just as well.
True that. No amount of additional firearms is going to help in this situation. I'm not sure if anything could be of help in this situation. We'll know more in a few hours. Until then i'm going to stay home and hug my family.
Somebody got shot at the liquor store up the street. People get shot all the time. Sometimes they even shoot themselves.
So maybe we should take away all those guns that they're using to shoot eachother.
That's not really feasible. There's 270 million guns registered in the US -- that's 88.8 per 100 people. Regardless of what should or shouldn't be done, taking away guns isn't practical. Perhaps instead of removing the MO, we should take away the motive. More better mental health facilities and poverty reduction/great society programs. Spend the defense money on welfare. Open the State Sanitariums back up. etc.
Impose a hefty excise tax on ammunition. Make ammunition production as tax-centric as alcohol production. Maybe allow a discount on small quantities of ammunition when purchased as part of a hunting license.
Impose a hefty excise tax on ammunition. Make ammunition production as tax-centric as alcohol production. Maybe allow a discount on small quantities of ammunition when purchased as part of a hunting license.
That would throttle the hobby. Ammunition is all ready expensive enough to make range time prohibitive for folks, and the amount of ammunition actually needed for a criminal is minuscule. So you would kill the hobby without cutting down on crime.
Edit: For example: If you imposed a tax of $1 a round you would increase my cost of two hours at the range by $50-$600. You would increase the cost of the average murder by about $5.
Impose a hefty excise tax on ammunition. Make ammunition production as tax-centric as alcohol production. Maybe allow a discount on small quantities of ammunition when purchased as part of a hunting license.
That would throttle the hobby. Ammunition is all ready expensive enough to make range time prohibitive for folks, and the amount of ammunition actually needed for a criminal is minuscule. So you would kill the hobby without cutting down on crime.
Edit: For example: If you imposed a tax of $1 a round you would increase my cost of two hours at the range by $50-$600. You would increase the cost of the average murder by about $5.
It's a little more complicated than that.
An excise tax is imposed on the producer or retailer, not the consumer. In the case of alcohol production (for example), a brewery must pay a tax to the TTB for every barrel (31 gallons) of beer removed from the facility for sale at the retail level. They must do so once the beer is physically removed from their facility.
It is, at its essence, a massive inconvenience for the manufacturer. Coupled with the 3-tier distribution system, it results in an artificial reduction in beer output, which creates a minor retail scarcity.
So, place an excise tax on ammunition that is to be paid by the manufacturer prior to the removal of product for retail sale. You could even through in the distributor level requirement and make a 3-tier distribution system for ammunition.
This makes it less profitable for ammunition to be sold at the retail level, reducing the incentive for ammunition manufacturers to sell to that market.
Over time, this will result in a significant reduction in the supply of ammunition at the retail level.
The key is to tax at a level that is inconvenient. If you make the hobby sufficiently inconvenient, you will reduce the proliferation of easily-accessible firearms and ammunition, which in and of itself will contribute to a reduction in firearm-related fatalities.
Hobbyist shooters can get a pellet or BB gun, take up paintball, or learn how to reload cartridges. The excise tax could result in a fresh interest in custom cartridge loading, actually. The tax would ultimately act like a cover charge, weeding out the people who are into guns because they're fashionable or part of the national identity - much in the same way that cigarettes are falling out of favor.
The ultimate object is to create a paradigm shift in the gun culture in the country. Part of the reason we have so many damn guns is because it's part of the national identity, and we have a proliferation because of ease of access. Reduce ease of access while encouraging an alternate production stream for the hobby, and you will change the culture around that hobby entirely.
No, it will not eliminate firearm homicides - but it will make them less convenient, resulting in at least a reduction in the crimes of passion. If we also make ammunition outright less common, there will be a reduction in fatalities by virtue of the fact that it's harder to get bullets.
Reloading is 100% legal. No black market needed. The difference is that it requires an investment of time and know-how, which is something most gun owners won't want to do. Only people who are really passionate about the hobby will dedicate their time to it; most of the "weekend warrior" types will probably stop caring over time, as it's too inconvenient for them to keep up.
So, responsible and knowledgable gun owners will see no change in the monetary cost of their hobby - actually, it may go down, as reloading is cheaper. The irresponsible gun owners who bought a gun because 'MURRICA FUCK YEAH and never bothered to learn gun safety will likely just give up.
It should reduce the number of idiots with easy access to guns; that demographic is responsible for most of our gun deaths.
That's not really feasible. There's 270 million guns registered in the US -- that's 88.8 per 100 people.
Several of the recent studies on gun ownership have noted that it's more guns in fewer households, and that trend is toward fewer gun owners possessing the bulk of the guns.
That's not really feasible. There's 270 million guns registered in the US -- that's 88.8 per 100 people.
Several of the recent studies on gun ownership have noted that it's more guns in fewer households, and that trend is toward fewer gun owners possessing the bulk of the guns.
I am aware of this. Since 1972, gun ownership has dropped form %55 to %34. I don't see how that changes things.
Comments
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/24/16125861-4-firefighters-shot-2-dead-after-responding-to-blaze?lite
Oh wait, that sounds just as crazy coming from me as it does coming from the NRA.
http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/gunman-opens-fire-on-fire-crews-in-webster-new-york
EDIT: Not sure if they are allowed to carry on the job, I doubt any of them would (guns and fire don't mix), but i'm not certain.
Wow. Time Magazine's Cover as Secret Illuminati Broadcast (although the linked "article" isn't quite as coherent as my headline.)
The media will be all over this, they're desperate for another tragic shooting to milk now that the Newtown children are cold.
Edit: For example: If you imposed a tax of $1 a round you would increase my cost of two hours at the range by $50-$600. You would increase the cost of the average murder by about $5.
An excise tax is imposed on the producer or retailer, not the consumer. In the case of alcohol production (for example), a brewery must pay a tax to the TTB for every barrel (31 gallons) of beer removed from the facility for sale at the retail level. They must do so once the beer is physically removed from their facility.
It is, at its essence, a massive inconvenience for the manufacturer. Coupled with the 3-tier distribution system, it results in an artificial reduction in beer output, which creates a minor retail scarcity.
So, place an excise tax on ammunition that is to be paid by the manufacturer prior to the removal of product for retail sale. You could even through in the distributor level requirement and make a 3-tier distribution system for ammunition.
This makes it less profitable for ammunition to be sold at the retail level, reducing the incentive for ammunition manufacturers to sell to that market.
Over time, this will result in a significant reduction in the supply of ammunition at the retail level.
The key is to tax at a level that is inconvenient. If you make the hobby sufficiently inconvenient, you will reduce the proliferation of easily-accessible firearms and ammunition, which in and of itself will contribute to a reduction in firearm-related fatalities.
Hobbyist shooters can get a pellet or BB gun, take up paintball, or learn how to reload cartridges. The excise tax could result in a fresh interest in custom cartridge loading, actually. The tax would ultimately act like a cover charge, weeding out the people who are into guns because they're fashionable or part of the national identity - much in the same way that cigarettes are falling out of favor.
The ultimate object is to create a paradigm shift in the gun culture in the country. Part of the reason we have so many damn guns is because it's part of the national identity, and we have a proliferation because of ease of access. Reduce ease of access while encouraging an alternate production stream for the hobby, and you will change the culture around that hobby entirely.
No, it will not eliminate firearm homicides - but it will make them less convenient, resulting in at least a reduction in the crimes of passion. If we also make ammunition outright less common, there will be a reduction in fatalities by virtue of the fact that it's harder to get bullets.
That being said, doing a background check for ammunition purchases might still help some, if only a tiny bit.
So, responsible and knowledgable gun owners will see no change in the monetary cost of their hobby - actually, it may go down, as reloading is cheaper. The irresponsible gun owners who bought a gun because 'MURRICA FUCK YEAH and never bothered to learn gun safety will likely just give up.
It should reduce the number of idiots with easy access to guns; that demographic is responsible for most of our gun deaths.
An yes it's always a tragedy.