What happens to a dis-armed populace.

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:11n009o2bhk3fda@corp.supernews.com...
> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:11mvvfvr08pfu53@news.supernews.com...
>
> > Yah, the local pot grower is an eeeeeeexcellent example of a law
> > abiding citizen.
>
> No worse than the average corn liquor distiller.
>
> > And an excellent example of how "harmless" pot is as well.
>
> He was protecting his business, just like a Korean.
>
> Fortunately for the Koreans, their drug is legal.
>
> The fact is, he was a petty criminal, a pot grower, not a killer. But
when
> people get ahold of guns, that killer instinct of the id wants to surface.
> Not every man can hold back the urge to kill but it's sure a lot easier
> without a gun in hand.

What a dance -that- is.

> > Sure, a single incident among 200 million firearms.
>
> Those are two single incidents in the L.A. area within a week and a half.
> Single incidents add up.
>
> > And the guy wasn't a "previously law abiding gun owner".
> > He bought the gun to do the crime.
>
> Instead of a baseball bat. Go figure.

If he planned the crime and got the gun, laws won't stop him.

"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11n00kv42cbmo48@news.supernews.com...

> If he planned the crime and got the gun, laws won't stop him.

..00000005

Greg Mossman wrote:

> "dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
> news:admdnbe1JOE-dvLeRVn-rA@comcast.com...
>
>
>>Of course, you fail to count the extra x-rays and MRI's and Ultrasound
>>tests and other things that doctors prescribe in order to cover themselves
>>in the event that someone wants to sue them for malpractice.
>
>
> More than made up for by the extra x-rays and MRIs and ultrasounds and other
> things that fraudulent doctors order for patients who don't need them so
> they can bilk Medicare and insurance companies.
>
> And you fail to count the corresponding benefit to patients who actually
> receive complete medical examinations because the doctors, who otherwise
> would have tripled-booked the patients in for a 5 minute cursory examination
> at $180 a pop, fear getting sued for malpractice.
>
>
>>If attorneys were forced to pay only a reasonable and customary rate
>>versus a "contingency fee" that ends up being 30-50% of the settlement,
>>then there would be less malpractice suits brought.
>
>
> Why do you say that? An attorney only gets paid anything if the suit is
> successful. An attorney who takes an unsuccessful case on a contingency fee
> isn't making any money at all. Therefore, only those cases which have a
> likelihood of success, i.e. the meritorious cases, are the ones being
> litigated.

Except that anyone can "roll the dice" and try suing to see if they can
win (or at least get a settlement).

and lets not talk about the outrageous sums paid for "pain and
suffering" when attorneys get a sympathetic jury in a state where the
laws benefit the plaintiff
>
> What you would have is that only patients who could afford an attorneys'
> billable rates would have the means to sue. Insurance companies would love
> it if only millionaires could afford to sue doctors for malpractice. The
> doctors would be careful with their millionaire patients and not give a damn
> where they left their sponges in all the rest of the poor suckers since they
> wouldn't have a leg to stand on, especially after the doctor accidentally
> amputated them.

The plaintiff should be required to post a bond (or the attorney if it
is a contingency case) that would cover the fees should they lose
>
>
>>Nor do you mention the additional money spent by the insurance agencies
>>and doctors in their own legal fees.
>
>
> A doctor whose malpractice insurance doesn't fully cover him isn't too
> bright. The money spent by the insurance agencies comes out of the
> malpractice premiums.

A doctor usually has an attorney to see that HIS/HER interests are
represented, not just the insurance companies.
>
> Drop in the bucket.
>
> Like Bush wondering how to bail out Social Security with his left hand, then
> spending $300 billion in Iraq with the right hand, all you conservatives
> have the same poor math skills or the same lack of any sense of proportion.
> Which is it?
>
>


--
“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of moral crisis.”

"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
news:K-OdnRZ1vt1Pnu3eRVn-hw@comcast.com...

>> Why do you say that? An attorney only gets paid anything if the suit is
>> successful. An attorney who takes an unsuccessful case on a contingency
>> fee isn't making any money at all. Therefore, only those cases which
>> have a likelihood of success, i.e. the meritorious cases, are the ones
>> being litigated.
>
> Except that anyone can "roll the dice" and try suing to see if they can
> win (or at least get a settlement).

Hardly. All states have laws which punish attorneys for bringing frivilous
lawsuits. Hospitals keep careful records because of their fear of getting
sued. If a lawyer has a chance to win, which would induce an insurance
company to settle, there's probaby something to the lawsuit. An attorney
will invest huge sums in a big case if he's going to bring it to trial, not
only his own time and that of his employees, but big fees for expert
witnesses, court reporters, trial preparation. A typical multimedia trial
presentation, essential for today's TV-fed juries, can run $50K or more.
Deposition transcripts and reporter fees can cost tens of thousands of
dollars. A lawyer isn't going to gamble this much unless there's at least a
halfway decent chance of winning. With juries of today made hostile against
malpractice lawyers by all the anti-lawyer, insurance and doctor-funded
propaganda, no lawyer would take a suit to trial unless there's a real clear
case of negligence.

> and lets not talk about the outrageous sums paid for "pain and suffering"
> when attorneys get a sympathetic jury in a state where the laws benefit
> the plaintiff

So you feel that patients made to suffer pain because of a doctor's
negligence should just grin and bear it? Perhaps you have a problem with
the jury system, the one that our founders dreamt up even before they wrote
the second amendment? Or can you just not trust that your peers, those who
make up the jury, might be making the decision on the real facts of the case
and not some second-hand one-paragraph blurb you read on NewsMax.com.

> The plaintiff should be required to post a bond (or the attorney if it is
> a contingency case) that would cover the fees should they lose

Exactly. Only millionaires could afford to sue in your perfect world.
Doctors would be free to fuck up as many poor people as they wished,
especially if it might interfere with a game of golf scheduled for the
afternoon.

Why shouldn't potential gun owners be required to post a bond in case their
gun accidentally or purposefully kills someone? Now that would make sense.
Then only millionaires could afford guns. That would cut down on all the
postal worker and school shootings, at least.

> A doctor usually has an attorney to see that HIS/HER interests are
> represented, not just the insurance companies.

Perhaps. That attorney isn't going to charge too much. He doesn't have to
do much.

Drop in the bucket. No matter how much you try to spin it, that drop will
never fly out of the bucket because it's too small.

"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
news:CJ6dnSUmX4Mbn-3eRVn-oQ@comcast.com...

> no, I'd have "grabbed my guns" and protected my home and property.
>
> I'd not have waited and hoped that the police and national guard would do
> my job for me.

Ah. Well no one made an attempt to get at my home and property. Wrong part
of town, I suppose. Not too many homes were attacked, just businesses.
Most people were smart enough not to try to risk their lives over mere
property and let the police and national guard do their jobs.

Greg Mossman wrote:

> "dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
> news:K-OdnRZ1vt1Pnu3eRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>
>
>>>Why do you say that? An attorney only gets paid anything if the suit is
>>>successful. An attorney who takes an unsuccessful case on a contingency
>>>fee isn't making any money at all. Therefore, only those cases which
>>>have a likelihood of success, i.e. the meritorious cases, are the ones
>>>being litigated.
>>
>>Except that anyone can "roll the dice" and try suing to see if they can
>>win (or at least get a settlement).
>
>
> Hardly. All states have laws which punish attorneys for bringing frivilous
> lawsuits. Hospitals keep careful records because of their fear of getting
> sued. If a lawyer has a chance to win, which would induce an insurance
> company to settle, there's probaby something to the lawsuit. An attorney
> will invest huge sums in a big case if he's going to bring it to trial, not
> only his own time and that of his employees, but big fees for expert
> witnesses, court reporters, trial preparation. A typical multimedia trial
> presentation, essential for today's TV-fed juries, can run $50K or more.
> Deposition transcripts and reporter fees can cost tens of thousands of
> dollars. A lawyer isn't going to gamble this much unless there's at least a
> halfway decent chance of winning. With juries of today made hostile against
> malpractice lawyers by all the anti-lawyer, insurance and doctor-funded
> propaganda, no lawyer would take a suit to trial unless there's a real clear
> case of negligence.
>
>
>>and lets not talk about the outrageous sums paid for "pain and suffering"
>>when attorneys get a sympathetic jury in a state where the laws benefit
>>the plaintiff
>
>
> So you feel that patients made to suffer pain because of a doctor's
> negligence should just grin and bear it? Perhaps you have a problem with
> the jury system, the one that our founders dreamt up even before they wrote
> the second amendment? Or can you just not trust that your peers, those who
> make up the jury, might be making the decision on the real facts of the case
> and not some second-hand one-paragraph blurb you read on NewsMax.com.

A jury of my peers? Hardly. More like a jury of those who cannot figure
out how to get out of jury duty.



--
“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of moral crisis.”

"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
news:P56dneHBHKxqke3eRVn-pg@comcast.com...

> A jury of my peers? Hardly. More like a jury of those who cannot figure
> out how to get out of jury duty.

And no one said not to pay victims, the idea is not to allow lawyers to grow
filthy rich off the misfortune of others, at the expense of the working,
insurance buying public.

No one but an asshole or an idiot would even propose to make anyone believe
that the insurance pay-outs come out of the pocket of the CEO or
stockholders in the insurance company.

Thing keep going the way they are, you wont find an OBGYN or General
Practitioner willing to take on a pregnant mother, let alone deliver a
child.

It'll be back to hot water and blankets, courtesy the Bar Association.

Greg like to champion himself as the defender and keeper of the minorites
(like all liberal lying sacks of shit like Al Franken, Michael Moore, etc),
and then utter shit like "because you cant afford insurance".

I wonder if the wetbacks that mow his lawn and clean his toilet have
benefits?

Thus spake Michael Wolf <michael.wolf@advalvasstopspam.be> :

>Lee Bell wrote:
>> "Greg Mossman" wrote
>>
>>
>>>So what does Muslim have to do with it? Thankfully the Muslims aren't
>>>armed, is that your point?
>>
>>
>> You think maybe gas and a match don't qualify as armed to the lady they
>> burned to death? You think she's thankful they burned her instead of, say,
>> shooting her? Do you suppose that, if she were given the choice, she would
>> chose burning to death over the risk of an armed citizen present and willing
>> to protect her?
>>
>> Lee
>>
>>
>Against youths who would certainly be armed themselves then too?

If I saw them attacking granny? I'd take the shot. I've only got ten
rounds, I'll take the first ten volunteers.
--
dillon

Anyone who says grown men don't cry has never
taken a differential equations final.

Thus spake Matthias Voss <spammat.voss@gmx.de> :

>>> Rioting Spreads to New Cities in France
>>> More Fires Break Out on Ninth Night of Violence
>>> By JAMEY KEATEN, AP
>>>
>>> AUBERVILLIERS, France (Nov. 5) - Widespread riots across impoverished
>>> areas
>>> of France took a malevolent turn
>
>
>This is bullshit. The areas did not impoverish.
>
>The areas were flooded with "poor" people because of a too
>permissive immigration policy.
>
>Had they stayed were they came from, their "poverty" would
>go unnoticed because of being the same as in their surrounding.
>
>Matthias

Oh my god, a voice of reason and sanity.

--
dillon

Anyone who says grown men don't cry has never
taken a differential equations final.

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Y7OdnXDWUcbxku3eRVn-pQ@wavecable.com...

> And no one said not to pay victims, the idea is not to allow lawyers to
> grow
> filthy rich off the misfortune of others, at the expense of the working,
> insurance buying public.

1.2%

> No one but an asshole or an idiot would even propose to make anyone
> believe
> that the insurance pay-outs come out of the pocket of the CEO or
> stockholders in the insurance company.

1.2%

> I wonder if the wetbacks that mow his lawn and clean his toilet have
> benefits?

My Latin-American gardener would hate to be called a wetback. His family
has probably been in this country a lot longer than yours. I'm not sure if
he provides his workers benefits. I hope he does. I've always supported
universal health care.