So, is this about recovery or is this about an advantage on the field? If recovery then I think, as you suggest, it's a no-brainer.

But, if it's about an on-the-field-advantage (think Barry Bonds) then it's different.

Then again, I'm less bothered by Barry's roiding than I am by his wearing of armor at the plate because he's chicken ****. Personally I would have thrown at his head at least once an at-bat to remind him how owns the inner half.

I'm not speaking about morality of guns, specifically. I have touched on that some, as it pertains to the overall argument used by anti-gun people. As far as your point, you are telling me one minute that you're concerned about social cost, and then it switches to economic loss.

Circular reasoning will get this discussion nowhere.

I stated that we cannot accurately measure social cost of guns anymore than we can measure the effects of the internet. There are pro's and cons, and my point is that if we're going to shift the greater burden on the gun owners (which they already do bear the greatest burden, considering they are paying for their guns), then we better go down the line with everything else.

Like it or not, morality is part of this equation. So please don't repeat to me that you don't care about morality. I get that you don't. The fact of the matter is that while you might be able to look at some numbers that show negative effect, you are ignoring the positive effects. There are not enough police to protect and serve the ENTIRE public at all times. Taking away that security from the those who would like to be able to protect themselves could lead to an enormous spike in crime, should guns be banned. That would certainly be in the category of social cost.

With this in mind, I think it is absurd to suggest that people who only want to protect themselves, should bear the brunt of the burden when a disaster happens. That is effectively linking all gun owners together as murderers.

Case in point: I did not ask Barack Obama to give a 750 billion dollar bailout to a failing car company, and I don't know anyone personally who thinks that was a good idea. And yet, we are all bearing that burden, are we not? That's the way the economy works, we all bear the burden for everything, with the top 2 or 3 percent obviously paying more than everyone else.

So why, then, should JUST gun owners be responsible for bearing the burden of others mistakes? No person who is not personally involved in a shooting is directly paying the price, but yes, there are overall economic impacts. I have not, and would not deny that. But anytime something happens, be it a shooting, a flood, an increase in car accidents, there is always economic backlash. Insurance rates go up, there are more laws added for safety and you have to pay for various courses, etc. The theme with all these instances is that they effect everyone in some way, and we all know that.

The problem I have is the implication that gun owners are somehow different. Why should they be singled out for something that for something that they didn't cause? Why should the burden not be balanced out? On the surface, it seems wrong that we should ever have to pay for anything that doesn't directly involve us, but it unfortunately has to, otherwise there would be widespread poverty.

Theoretically, You could force gun owners to pay insurance, but that would penalize far too many people who don't deserve it. More people own cars than those who own guns. The vast majority of those who own guns are well versed in the laws and keep their guns hidden and often unloaded. There is a reason you are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon. It's not something you just tote around. Whereas with cars, every time we get in our vehicles we have a possibility of causing a massive amount of damage and/or death. Regardless of our intentions. That is why insurance is necessary for car owners.

If you try to quantify the risk of owning a gun to that of car owners by simply looking at the numbers of deaths, then you would have to pay even higher insurance rates than you do for vehicles, simply because there are less gun owners to bear the burden. Hundreds of dollars for a little piece of metal?

Here is the point I would most like for you to take from this: Guns do not bear near the risk of vehicles. It is the person owning it who can make it dangerous. They don't fire themselves sitting on a shelf or in a case, and accidents are far more rare. One does not randomly fire, and HIT an innocent bystander on accident very often. Almost never. Cars are an immediate risk every single time they are used. There are countless ways of being distracted and accidentally hitting someone.

This is why I believe it is ridiculous to suggest insurance on guns. And without insurance, there is no way to shift the burden. We don't have to agree with everything in this country, and we certainly don't, but we either share our economic burden (without socialistic tax hikes on the wealthy, bringing down the job market), or we can watch ourselves implode.

I get your point, and I can see that you are apparently of the belief that if you don't purchase something, you shouldn't bear any consequences from it. I am simply saying that we have always had to bear the burdens of things that we maybe didn't condone, or simply had no personal stake in. To change that now, would cause consequences that I'm not sure anyone is ready for.

In my opinion, there should be limits to the use of steroids, but not all out bans. Because I agree that steroids have been proven quite useful in speeding up recovery, as well as aiding in a more complete recovery. But they have also been proven to have negative effects when used for the wrong reasons over the long term.

Drugs should not be used to build muscle, period. Don't care if you're an athlete or not. It can degenerate cartilage, cause heart problems, massive mood swings and much, much more. Using anabolic steroids strictly for growing muscle means prolonged use, and potentially major consequences.

In sports, you see people suspended for ABUSING drugs, and then you have those who use them for health reasons, and they are treated exactly the same. I see no reason why all sports can't simply ban recreational use, and allow medical use. This can be done by allowing athletes to request permission to use for medical treatment, have the athletes present signed medical documents to their respective league offices, showing proof of use, time frame of each usage, along with the athlete's signed consent and knowledge to whatever treatment he or she received.

With all athletes having these same rights and guidelines, there would be no competitive advantage, no excuse in court of saying "I was trying to rehab from surgery, and didn't know I was receiving a banned subtance", no confusion as to the reason of use from a fan's perspective, and they would have the opportunity to heal in the same way that any average citizen does without the worry of being penalized.

All abuse of drugs (any usage without the previously mentioned documents of consent and legality) would continue to carry the appropriate penalties, without so many of the long and unnecessary legal battles. Because players often use the "logic" that they were unaware of what they were taking. In truth, anything that can help you heal faster should not be banned, but it is, and athletes should always be aware of what is or is not legal. Giving medical rights, and taking away excuses from those who abuse drugs should really speed up the legal process, and (maybe) deter them from future violations. It would at least draw a line between the cheaters and those who honestly aren't looking for an advantage.

I have no sympathy for people like Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens. They used steroids for advantage, and knew it was illegal. Armstrong may have needed some help getting into shape after cancer, but we now know that he used well beyond his rehab.

As for players who took steroids before they were banned; I think they showed a lack of character, but they are not technically cheaters. For this reason I think it's stupid that you have sportswriters standing on their high horse 25 years later, talking about morality of players, when they had good reason to believe this was going on back then and yet said nothing about it. The hypocrisy bugs me.

In other words you don't want to answer any of my questions? That is not a form of critical thought. I use facts and common sense, not an internet list of ideas, for my own critical thinking.

You evade nearly every question I ask with another question. I am specifically speaking to you, not anyone else. If you are offended by the directness of my replies, then perhaps debate is not for you. But I digress.

Your social cost theory is exactly that, a theory. It goes back to the "negative externality" argument. You can not rationally make a distinction between the negative affects of a gun, without being able to prove what a person would do without one. I'll go back to the car reference. Cars are very positive in that they get us where we need to go, and they are much more convenient than traveling by horse or foot. But there are so many cars on the road that a lot of bad accidents happen. That is certainly a negative. I'm not lobbying to get rid of cars. It's simply an illustration. But if we are to make economic arguments based on things outside of upfront money, then we better go down the list of things that have negative social impact.

I don't hear any arguments that we should get rid of prescription drugs, which people use to commit suicide by overdose at times, or people become so dependent on them that they can not function rationally without them. Or the internet which is used in negative ways, such as stalking, bullying and generally dumbing down society with all the false information and rumors circulating. There are those who use it for positive things however. So how do we determine how much positive vs. negative impact any of these things have? It's hearsay.

You're asking me how we manage these "social costs" and who should bear the burden. How in the world do I answer that question when there is no direct evidence of the overall impact on society, as opposed to those who are personally affected by either owning a gun or being a victim of tragedy. I don't argue in theory.

I gave you the reason for no gun insurance already. Insurance is meant to cover for damage/losses/medical. It's not a means to make up for any economic loss for the price of manufacturing anything. Where do you get the idea that's what insurance is for? The true cost of misusing a gun, is prison. That's as strong a deterrent as you can get.

Also, I am not near dumb enough to believe your blog isn't intended to further demonize gun owners. You are trying a different angle, and it is not adding up.

Your numbers on murders and suicides fell far short of the number of car accidents and deaths. And also, the suicide stat is meaningless. When someone is prepared to take their own life, they will do it. It would be just a easy to overdose. Would you like to talk about the negative externalities of prescription drugs? Should we not have medication because someone might commit suicide? I well stated in my previous reply that it doesn't matter what people use. They'll use what is available to them. What is the productive value of a bow and arrow? Nothing. But if there were no guns it would be used as a primary weapon. Once again, people like to hunt and also like to be protected. That sounds pretty valuable to me.

You continue to ignore the numerous positives that come from guns. Your argument is that they are either unproductive or used to destroy or kill. But what about cops who use them to defend citizens? What about soldiers who use weapons to defend our country, or people who just want to have some peace of mind? If people are buying guns, then profit is being made. What makes you think those who don't want guns are somehow being burdened by this?

Tell me, how can guns not provide wealth, when people buy them? Does it make you angry every time someone makes a purchase if it does not put money in your pocket? Comic books don't bring wealth to the general public, but they make money for those selling them. Isn't that the point of business? Nothing continues to pump money into the economy after it is already paid for, with the exception of service charges on our phones, and paying utilities. The main source of money for the economy is our income tax dollars. When you purchase a gun, you do pay a sales tax. Do you think we should be taxed monthly for something we've already paid for?

The only things that hurt our economy are: 1) Businesses being so incredibly overtaxed that they can't retain enough employees to be productive, and eventually fail, causing even more jobs to be lost. 2) Those tax dollars are then used to subsidize businesses that have ALREADY PROVEN to be unproductive, and NOT used to bring down the debt. Or any form of wasteful spending by our government. If people buy guns , who cares if they ever use them? They PAID for it, didn't they?

Xan, allow me to put this in plain english.

You may use the word externalities as many times as you please, but the fact of the matter is that guns are not meant for murder. They are meant for hunting, target practice and most of all, defense. The fact that some use guns for violence is strictly a matter of it being the primary available weapon, and the fault lies with the perpetrator, not the gun.

Genghis Khan, one of, if not the MOST brutal leader in history, ruthlessly conquered northeast Asia and built the largest empire known to man at the time, and it sustained well after his death. How did he do all this? He and his army had not guns, not bombs, not tanks, but simple things like swords and clubs. Those were the weapons of the time and Khan was able to slaughter all those people because he was smart, for one, but mostly because he had an insatiable thirst for power through bloodshed.

That, my friend, is pure evil. And it is that sort of evil that makes any weapon dangerous.

Why do I say this? Because it illustrates how mankind adapts. Today, guns are the primary weapons. Every day, guns are used to COMBAT violence, just as much if not more than they are used to commit violence.

Still think guns are bad? Okay. Let's ban them. Then what? Criminals start breaking into homes, knowing the people are unarmed. But let me just play along and assume that the government could actually get rid of EVERY single gun in America... Then criminals would just find another way. They always have, and we've always had to adapt.

So in the case of a car, it doesn't matter how many more or less possibilities (or externalities, as you would say) there are for something bad to happen. If a person wants to run you over, he can. Or it could be a drunk driver. Again, blame the person.

As for your opinion on the costs of owning a car vs. owning a gun: It takes an absolutely evil person to commit murder. It only takes a moment of distraction to cause a massive accident and kill several people, in a car. On average, there are 6 million accidents per year, with 3 million resulting in injuries, and in excess of 40,000 deaths annually.

Here is the link to those statistics: Car Accident Statistics -- Lawcore.com

It is an enormous responsibility, as you are surrounded by cars at almost all times. It's not a joyride, and should not be treated that way. Insurance is necessary because if you get into a significant wreck, you MUST have help paying for the damages. So you have to pay a fee for that... I'd rather a monthly fee of a couple hundred, give or take, per month than to have to pay out of pocket for thousands of dollars in damage. Not that paying bills is ever fun, but in the case of insurance I understand the necessity of it. If you're a safe driver, your rates won't be too high.

Guns should be taken equally as seriously in terms of how you use them, without a doubt. But guns don't carry all that risk. They can be deadly, but they are not that hard to use. You almost HAVE to intentionally shoot someone, as accidents are very rare. Yes murders happen, aswell as accidents, and it is tragic. But you cannot predict how a person will act. You get a background check, you get your fingerprints taken, and you have to demonstrate the ability to properly use the gun. That is the law, and I believe it is perfectly just. Why should anyone pay insurance on a gun? If you shoot someone you go to prison... think about that.

Actually, Kev, getting a gun license is an extremely rigorous process.

Food for thought: Why is it that when somebody drinks and drives, and ends up killing people, nobody blames the car? Well obviously that's because the car wasn't operating itself. So why then do people blame guns when someone uses one to kill? There are a number of ways to commit murder. We should be more concerned about people than guns. And that is why you go through background checks before you can own a gun.

Really interesting read...! I particularly wish that pro-guns folk look at the logic of your argument, particularly at the part of the requirements of owning a car in comparison to owning a gun!

heh

Your idea of a successful economic system is to have mass mediocrity. That's what socialism is. I believe if you want more money, go earn it. I've never been above the poverty line, yet I don't ask the government to steal from the rich as if they've done something immoral by earning their wealth. Raising taxes on the wealthy just ensures that more workers will be laid off to compensate. The rich already pay about 70 percent of the taxes. What more do you want?

At some point the wealthy will inevitably fall back into the middle class, and that's where people lose jobs. If the wealthy are paying 70 percent, then what does that tell you? It means a lot of people have no jobs. Even if the rich paid the same total amount of tax dollars as they do now, their percentage of total taxes paid wouldn't be nearly so high if there were more tax payers.

I don't have a problem with financial aid, in and of itself. I have needed it myself, but what I have received is only to help cover my family's basic needs when money is tight. However, when I, or any of us are working we may still need foodstamps if we're not making enough, but at least we're doing our part to pump whatever money we can afford back into the economy. In other words, we don't need MORE stuff being given to us, we need jobs, we need opportunity for advancement so that we don't have to rely on the government. It's simple. If people are not MAKING money then they are not able to pay taxes and give back.

But instead, you have big brother promising to "take care" of the poor, not by creating jobs, but by giving them more and more money to do nothing. It has created an attitude of entitlement and too many people are just sitting back, taking advantage.

This creates two major problems: The demands continue to rise on the wealthy to subsidize the irresponsible, and secondly, those of us who are below the poverty line but want to work, or maybe get a raise, have a hard time getting either of the two because employers who would otherwise help us are cutting back instead.

And before you say that these businesses can afford these taxes, but they just don't want to fork over the money, you might want to read this. Caldeira: How Do You Hurt Franchises? Raise Tax Rates : Roll Call Opinion

Many of those who are referred to as "rich" are in fact not even close to being rich. Franchise businesses may have a big name, but each branch of them is run by small business owners. A fact that is pointed out in the article, is that the top 2-3 percent include 941,000 small businesses. This effects all of us. As I've stated, I'm not rich, and I know from experience that sometimes financial aid is needed. But I don't want to rely on it, and I don't want anyone else thinking they are owed it. If we have more job opportunities and more people motivated to work we will have a much more efficient economy.

Simply raising taxes on the top 2 or 3 percent, and giving handouts is not stimulating anything, nor is it motivating those who are taking advantage of the system to at least try to work. As for Social Security, that is not a handout. It is a reward. If you don't earn enough credits over the span of your working years, you don't get anything. So nothing is being wasted there. If money is taken out of social security to pay for Obamacare, then it won't matter what age you are, or how much you worked. Your reward will be nothing, because SC will be bankrupt.

Xan believes we should simply do a better job of saving toward our retirement. But there's one problem with that. Those who need SC aren't making enough money to afford saving much of it. Seniors deserve to be taken care of when they've paid their dues but can no longer work. Xan's plan is to just say to hell with the seniors because they are sucking money out of our pockets. First off, that is essentially euthanasia. But they are not sucking money from anyone. They have earned those credits.

By the way, people act like redistribution is a bad thing. When wealth in particular (Waltons, same wealth as bottom 42% of Americans), and income are so maldistributed, then not only is redistribution not a bad thing. It's the ONLY thing to do. Best we do it creating jobs, making sure we all have access to health care, and that our grandparents are taken care of, at least minimally. Call me a Socialist. I'll thank you. Some people foolishly believe it's a bad thing, because instead of thinking about how it affects you, they've heard someone else tell them it's bad, and they've repeated it.

As far as raising the retirement age, at 57 sometimes I already feel like I'm 80. People with physical labor jobs are not likely to even make it to 65, much less 67. It's a stupid idea, unless you are working in congress, or an easy money job talking on the phone all day, and shuffling papers. Add to that, a lot of folks already get fired just after they are 50. It's just a fact--and I've seen it happen anecdotally.

And whether you want to believe all of this or not, Republicans have done this, they've nearly destroyed America. We might as well send in the orders for crowns and scepters, and thrones, as we're nearly a Dynasty, with Kings and Queens, princes and princesses, Lords and Ladies. I think some misunderstand just how much a few have, just so a small slice of the population can have wildly so, so much. Mitt has many multi-room mansions, and only pays 13 percent, making 20-30 million a year, and he doesn't even get why we're upset. We pay more than that just on SS insurance.

Democrats aren't much better, but moving left is our only chance to salvage this mess that evil old, addled b*stard Reagan started. We've been "rushing to the bottom," for 35 years now, and at this point we're bouncing like a rock on the pond. The question is, are we going to sink, or bounce back up on the shore.

People had better, once again, pay attention to which party butters their bread, vote in the primaries and choose those who actually help YOU on economic issues, not some jerk who is campaigning on social issues, many that have nothing to do with you, or your lives at all. Mostly they are about you voting for trying to control the lives of others, and in the process losing money economically.

Well let me start with a few facts. We've collected 2.7 Trillion MORE than we've paid out to SS recipients at this point. We've been loaning that money to the rich, in the form of tax cuts. What we need is to find ways to pay that money back, that the rich, and wars have taken from it, to the SS fund.

Simple fixes are to raise the income cap. Most of us have the full 12.4 percent taken out, half from our checks, half from our employer. Economists consider that part of our compensation, so essentially we're paying that out of our checks. For all the money we make, up to the current cap, they take that out. It is at about $108,000 now. Above that, they stop taking it out. So simply kicking the cap to the curb, or raising it steadily so higher income folks will pay as much as the lower roughly 80% of us pay makes it solvent out past 2080, and beyond.

Democrats aren't "in charge of almost everything." Republicans, due to some heavy gerrymandering, and though Democrats had a million more votes for House (of representative) seats, Republicans kept the House. If Republicans refuse to do anything majorities of 70-80 percent of us want to do, then Democrats are powerless. Add to that, the Senate has to have currently 60 votes, to choose to vote on anything. That is called "cloture." It basically means all debate is shut down, and voting can occur up and down. Republicans filibustered roughly 380 bills. This is a massively historically high figure. Usually roughly 25 bills are per 2 year period. Sadly, Republicans in order to make Obama look bad, have refused to do anything, almost anything at all. We never had 60 Senators even in the first two years, with 57, then 58 after Franken was sworn in late because of the close vote in MN.

I read this blog last night and was so angry, I didn't know where to begin. This is by far the sickest post I have seen on this site. And frankly, it's one of the worst I've seen anywhere. Xan, people like you are what is wrong with America. This kind of incoherent psychobabble is what our so called "leaders" are trying to force on us. The only difference between you and them, is that they aren't quite so blunt in their terminology. But this mindless, disgusting rant you have put on display illuminates just how ruthless this kind of proposed system truly is.

Does your mother know you would rather she just die, than to be able to enjoy the fruits of her life long labor? If Grandma hadn't married your grandpa, you mother would never have existed, which means you wouldn't have either. I bet you never considered that...

And keeping on the grandma subject that you brought up, why does she not deserve social security just because she didn't work enough to save up? Could it be, perhaps, that she was too busy staying home raising some ungrateful shmuck?... Maybe someone like you?

I agree with SloMotion's sentiments above. This blog is a complete 180 of your previous posts about what you perceive to be the problem. So you're not even consistent. As for the other reply above, I don't know how anyone can believe this is a republican problem. Republicans have almost no say anymore. Democrats have control of almost everything. and of the problems we already face, they are proposing more of the same, and even worse. No such thing as a blue dog democrat. A blue dog is used to describe the more moderate, or liberal so called "republicans". I'm a conservative, myself. I'm tired of people refusing to take responsibility for the insane things they vote for. There have been some of these aforementioned blue dog republicans who have contributed to the problem, and you can blame them all day, that's fine. But don't pretend that liberals are somehow innocent when they are campaigning for this kind of crap Xan is talking about, everyday.