Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "4 Million Americans Lost Health Insurance In Last 2 Years" video.

  1. Rand Paul is correct. Also, the US spends more than Canada due to our R&D.
    5
  2. Kamran, it does include R&D. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3633404/ "Part of the gap between US and Canadian health care costs may be explained by a failure to account for Canadian hospital’ capital costs, larger proportion of elderly in the United States and higher level of spending on research and development in the US."
    4
  3. True. Also, I question this poll.
    3
  4. AmericanNohbuddy, I agree that "may be" does not mean it is. However, it does play a role. The US leads the world in R&D in healthcare. That does play a role. You can't deny that. There are other factors as well to where the high price does not equal a poor system. As for longer life expectancies, there are many factors beyond healthcare that contribute to that. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders from all countries the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Infant mortality is deceptive as well due to the fact that 1. Every country reports it differently 2. the US has higher rates of pre-mature births which almost unavoidable even with a strong healthcare system Point being, these stats people love to look at are raw. When you break them down nothing suggests that other countries do it better.
    3
  5. I love how people rip on PragerU but never have a legit argument against them.
    2
  6. How do you ensure people don't die? What government action can do that?
    2
  7. In comparison the Boskin Commission reported there is a 1.1% difference in actual inflation and reported inflation. No one cared during that time as well.
    2
  8. Masta, what other countries have 320+ million people and the success we have?
    2
  9. cptmiller132, you brought up the poll and the Commonwealth Fund did this poll. " Also keep in mind that they usually only poll working people when they do this shit so the number gets even higher when you include things like kids or people who were already uninsured before the last 2 years" that was from your comment.
    2
  10. Kurt.Dk-55, a right is something the government cannot take away without due process. In other countries they DO NOT have a right to healthcare, period. Please learn what rights are.
    2
  11. Faddn, you don't have a right to cops and firefighters. That is the difference. Also, cops and firefighters are locally ran and funded where 70% of fire fighters are volunteered.
    2
  12. barrett wells, that is why in Canada they lack doctors for specialized services like surgery.
    2
  13. AmericanNohbuddy, here is another study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560551/ People have died during wait times. Also, rationing in healthcare is common due to limited resources https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415127/ As for satisfaction, that is deceptive. When you experience no other system how can you make a legit opinion on if you are satisfied or not?
    2
  14. " I don't have a right to a cop or firefighter ?" You don't. In some areas the fire department if private.
    2
  15. "f you don't think we have surgeons here you should really step out of your bubble and google something outside of your own town." You do, but you have longer wait times due to less surgeons putting in less hours.
    2
  16. "R&D isn't done by your health insurance company, so I don't see how it's relevant." It does add to the cost of healthcare.
    2
  17. This was before Trump buddy.
    1
  18. So is the healthcare system in other countries. What's your point?
    1
  19. Medicare for all is not the answer. Just saying that everyone is "covered" on paper is on paper only. There are many problems with healthcare that I would like to fix. But just creating a law saying everyone is "covered" is not the solution as it ignores a lot in reality.
    1
  20. AmericanNohbuddy, defined "covered". Giving someone Advil to cancer is "covered" if you want to define it that way.
    1
  21. AmericanNohbuddy, I don't. I want high quality healthcare for all. However, I live in reality and realize we lack resources. So with that I have to go other routes and provide high quality healthcare to as many as possible. I feel a free market system is the best route but also realize that the situation is complex.
    1
  22. Isaac M, you are increasing the demand for healthcare without increasing supply. That would lead to higher prices or lower quality. Same thing happened in colleges with tuition and the student loan program.
    1
  23. They are getting richer.
    1
  24. PianoSymphony, care to explain?
    1
  25. Eltrio2, OK, when?
    1
  26. The All Mighty Zionist....., I know what propaganda is. I am not saying PragerU isn't propaganda. I am pushing others to prove it. I am pushing them to create a stronger argument.
    1
  27. PianoSymphony, those situations you bring up have nothing to do with capitalism. However, seeing how you are in the 1% how about you pay a 90% tax rate to help those people out in those poor countries?
    1
  28. "So someone deserves healthcare if they paid. People pay taxes so yes they are entitled to healthcare." If I pay only $5 in taxes do I deserve to have open heart surgery?
    1
  29. "so what is the alternative if they cant afford an open heart surgery? let them die?" Happens in other countries.
    1
  30. Here is a paper to read "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “
    1
  31. Also, if someone cannot afford a home they go homeless. If someone cannot afford food they go hungry. There are many things with it.
    1
  32. PianoSymphony, so that paper I referenced is not an example?
    1
  33. Government was powerful enough to give something it was powerful enough to take it away.
    1
  34. haplon, if I get cancer in the US I have a higher chance of living compared to other countries.
    1
  35. Greg Weber, 1% is low. If you scored a 90% on a test or a 91%, what is the difference?
    1
  36. Greg Weber, I just compared inflation to this. 1% is essentially within noise. In 2016 92% had insurance. What is 1% of 92%? Not much. I see noise here.
    1
  37. Masta Raven, "rights" are things the government cannot take away without due process. That's it. Your right to life means that government cannot take it away without due process.
    1
  38. cptmiller132, these polls are highly questionable to begin with. Also, who is the Commonwealth Fund? What are their credentials?
    1
  39. Timothy Judge, they can only through due process.
    1
  40. Masta Raven, your point on the M1A1 tank is asinine. By law the federal government cannot attack citizens without consent of the governor of that state. If they did the would be starting a civil war and thus splitting the government and military. At that point our guns would work very well against state and local governments.
    1
  41. Suzy, in a democracy people are not equal. 51% tells 49% what to do.
    1
  42. jmitterii2, no country covers everyone due to limitations in resources. Covering people on paper and actually covering people are two completely different things. People die in other nations due to shortcomings in healthcare. Yes, it would be great to cover everyone. It would also be great to teleport. However, we have neither due to reality.
    1
  43. The Hardcore Gentleman, police, roads, schools etc are all locally ran and funded. Also, they are a drop in the bucket in cost compared to healthcare and much less complicated. Last time I checked cops don't have to do around 10 years of schooling to become a cop.
    1
  44. Uh, this was before the new tax cuts so Trump had nothing to do with this. Also, like most polls, what are the specifics in poll? And what makes the Commonwealth Fund relevant?
    1
  45. Kurt.Dk-55, what is the R&D of Denmark? What is the quality of Denmark's healthcare? Not saying that their healthcare system is terrible, but the reality is that it has many shortcomings. People on the left continue to deny that and those that don't make a claim that countries with universal healthcare do it better when in reality no evidence says they do.
    1
  46. barrett wells, I waited less than a week for my MRI on my knee and paid $0. What's your point?
    1
  47. Kamran Keyium, there are several flaws there. To start, there is no study for what you are asking for as far as I know, so you can't prove or disprove anything at that point. Next, in your 45,000 number that is very deceptive. One, as a Harvard professor said bad health is associated with the poor to begin with. So the question becomes are they dying due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor. All of that is self inflicted. Two, you have nothing to compare that 45,000 number to. So at that point it is a pointless number as there is no number to compare it to as no study has been done for other countries. Now considering that 1. no country covers everyone and people die due to shortcomings, 2. that 45,000 is not accurate to begin with and chances are it is a lower number, 3. that 45,000 is only 0.01% of the population, I am very skeptical of that number and do not take is seriously. I would love for that number to be zero, but again that situation does not exist in any country, period. So with everything I have seen that 45,000 number is unfortunate, but not a major problem. Consider that around 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents, or around 40,000 are infected with HIV a year that 45,000 is not a major issue.
    1
  48. Tracy Johnson, ultra leftists live in a fantasy world where a government can just wave a magic wand and things happen.
    1
  49. Deez Nuts, I never said America was number 1. Point to me where I did and I will stand corrected. But I never did.
    1
  50. Tracy, I do feel we have smart enough people out there to prevent it. Also, the founding fathers developed a country to hinder government progress at the federal level for that reason. Trump winning was a great step away from socialism in the US. So in my lifetime I do not think we will see it. If we do it will be when I am about dead and I won't care.
    1
  51. Deez Nuts, I have never said that. Again, point to me where I have, and try to make the comment as recent as possible.
    1
  52. "umm, you've said from time to time America's systems are superior to Canada, European, Nordic, insert nation here time and time again" Again, when?
    1
  53. So no quote, I will take this as a victory for me.
    1
  54. Deez Nuts, again, I need a quote.
    1
  55. Kurt.Dk-55, in every nation people die due to shortcomings in healthcare. The harsh reality is that resources are limited an no system covers everyone. If the US were to create a system like Denmark our R&D will suffer and people will die because of that. In every system the extremes suffer. In universal healthcare the very sick suffer with longer wait times and inferior care. That is why cancer survival rates are lower in other countries. However, the very poor have access to basic care. That is an advantage. In the US the very sick do receive high quality care, but the very poor do suffer with bankruptcy or even death. No matter what the system someone suffers. In the end I support the US system for two reasons 1. We excel in R&D that improves healthcare overall 2. The poor in the US have self inflicted habits that lead to poor health such as obesity. I cannot support a system that caters to that So I support the US system and feel we need to adjust it to go to a more free market route. It does not mean the US system is the best, nor does it mean that Denmark has a bad system. It means that our system has these shortcomings we live with and your system has your shortcomings you choose to live with. In the end someone will suffer.
    1
  56. Deez Nuts, again, where did I say the US system was better? I am saying that other nations do not do it better. I never once said the US system is superior. Also, that is not my quote. You are misquoting me. You are literally lying to prove a point. This places you in the wrong.
    1
  57. Deez Nuts, I support it for many reasons, not just because I feel it is better. Another reason I support it is because I feel establishing universal healthcare in the US would be impossible without causing a major recession. Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. We have 320+ million people. Pushing for a change that radical in our government spending, our tax code, and shutting down that many insurance companies would cause a major recession. I feel that with all things considered the system we have is best for us and we should work with it. Even if we establishing a universal healthcare system it would cause a major recession at the very least we would not have a system that is any better. I posted a peer reviewed paper on paper dying in Canada on waiting lists. How am I lying at that point?
    1
  58. Deez Nuts, healthcare is very complex. To say one system is better than the other would be foolish. I support the US system for many reasons beyond one system being better. I support it based on how it would be next to impossible to establish and how our culture would not fair well with it amongst many other things. I have given this a lot of though. You haven't. This is why you have to lie about me and ignore research to push your point. I don't have to.
    1
  59. Deez Nuts, what "questionable research"? For the American culture one issue we have is that people want things but do not want to pay higher taxes. In other countries they accept the high taxes for those programs. The US culture is different. Does that make it right or wrong? No, it makes it different. You talk about the free market and bring up the public option. That is not the free market. However, I do support Medicaid being ran at the state and local level. I see the advantages of a public option as long as it is ran at the state and local level. Problem is that if gone too far only the rich benefit like we see in public education where lower income schools suffer. That is because the middle class cannot afford to pay double for education, as in higher taxes and private schools. So they send their kids to public schools where 90% of students go to public schools. The rich go to private schools and do well. The middle class suffer some, but they grow up in households where they learn proper habits. Poor kids suffer through that system with poor schools. The same could happen with a public option where the rich benefit, the middle class suffer some but with proper habits do well enough, and the poor suffer with inferior care and have no other options or chances to move up. Now not saying would happen, just saying it could with a public option. That is why I support a state managed one where states can adjust if needed. But saying you need a public option for competition to have a free market is 100% false.
    1
  60. nscloud29, that paper is from a journal. However, if you are questioning a government run site, why are you trusting them to run your healthcare?
    1
  61. TheFallinhalo, Bernie Sanders lost, and Trump won.
    1
  62. gcmgome, my experience in the US healthcare system has been fine. So by your standard the US system is great.
    1
  63. Deez Nuts, I am giving counter evidence by presenting research. But if others can do it why don't they? Why haven't you? The research is from journals, not the government. Even at that I never once said I do not trust the government. I am skeptical as one should be. I just feel that using them to provide healthcare in the US is no the best route. The Red Scare is a legit point. However, it goes beyond that. It comes down to basic economics and the idea of limited federal government. "You talk about states' rights, but then that logic can be applied to cities, districts and even smaller forms" I agree 100%. We see that with police and school districts. Police are ran at the city level. We see smaller forms with gated communities and them having their own security. Thanks for agreeing with me. "States won't always be able to adjust, some are already in debt and need federal assistance." If they are in debt that is their issue. However, one reason why is because the federal government collects too much tax revenue to begin with leaving less for the states. You have to understand the federal government has nothing until it takes from people. Giving money to the states is literally robbing Peter to pay Paul. " you do realize American voters are less likely to get the policies they voted for? Trump ran on anti war, healthcare coverage, and draining the swamp just like Bernie did. And even then, that only won him the electoral college and not the popular vote." Bernie did not run on draining the swamp. He ran on free shit. He would have expanded the swamp. Trump literally drained the swamp. And if the people want leftist policies they can establish them at the state level. With the exception of war they can do that. What is stopping states from establishing universal healthcare? Oh, wait, they either can't afford it or they don't want it like in Colorado where 80% said no. And before you say that that the federal government can afford it you have to understand the facts of 1. The federal government, like the states have no revenue until it taxes 2. It is in great debt were many states aren't
    1
  64. Raizhen010, in some places they do charge people. And yes, concrete does stop fires from spreading. Don't believe me? Try it sometime. Try lighting concrete on fire. But again, in some places fire departments are privatized. Around 70% of fire fighters are volunteered. Bringing up fire fighters does not strengthen your argument, it weakens it. With your standard you feel that doctors should be volunteers.
    1
  65. Isaac M, I agree that our healthcare system needs reformed. But to simply say that we can go to a universal healthcare route ran by the government is not an argument and in all reality not a solution.
    1
  66. Issac M, union busting and right to work is a poor comparison as you can always quit the job. Making healthcare a right is slavery as you would force doctors to serve you. Compare it to jury duty. People have a right to a trial by jury. If you are called for jury duty and refuse you go to jail. Doesn't matter if you get paid.
    1
  67. "there is a paper that specifically states that 45000 die each year due to lack of insurance" Another Harvard professor gave a rebuttal on that along with other professors. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
    1
  68. Deez Nuts, Trump promoted people who were not in federal positions. That is draining the swamp. The ultra left complains because they are rich. So do you want poor people as cabinet positions? As for money out of politics, that is a violation of free speech. As for vague phrases, Bernie used "living wage" and "fair share". He was nothing but vague. "We don't have limited government on social and personal levels " I agree, and it is a problem. What's your point? " Gated communities are just a display of further inequlity." So you want poor people living in the ghetto? "Police are ran at the city level but as a whole are becoming less trustworthy among the eyes of the people." How so? "I had no idea social security, medicare, and similar programs would be more efficient on the state level." They are running out of money now at the federal level. "I don't know why the states didn't conceive of these ideas in the first place, " Some do at some level, especially in healthcare. But if the federal government is going to do it states won't bother.
    1
  69. Kamran, is it fine to hinder our R&D in healthcare and let people die in wait lines? Every healthcare system has shortcomings.
    1
  70. gcmgome, even if I experienced Canada's healthcare system my experience does not represent the norm. Many have experienced it and hate it. Many have experienced the US system and love it. What's your point? That we can ignore all shortcomings based on personal experiences?
    1
  71. Deez Nuts, the problem is government in cronyism. You want to give government power. When it has unlimited power than it can be bought. You are complaining about government nor protecting the people. They do. They provide Medicare to you while taking money from big pharma. If you complain about taking money they will take away Medicare. You see the problem? Government has control over you. Also, corporations are ran by people. I am opposed to lobbying. I just realize that it can be stopped by limiting government. If government has no powers than it can't be bought. Can you buy alcohol at Kohls? No. Why? Because they don't have it. If government has limited power than it can't be bought. There is a desire to have government, but it needs to be controlled. You do that by making it as local as possible and placing limits on all levels.
    1
  72. Deez Nuts, businesses have zero power. For as bad as Walmart may be I have never seen them hold a gun to someone's head and force them to give them money or work for them. Government has. Government has the power where they can be bought out. Limit the powers of government and it has nothing to sell. You want to attack corporations by giving government more powers. And when you give government more powers rich corporations give government officials money who hardly enforce regulations, if at all. Or they create regulations to benefit businesses because you gave them power.
    1
  73. gcmgome, here are titles and journals of papers to read no wait times and deaths "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “   Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart   “Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals despite palliative options: report" CMAJ
    1
  74. "agian you have no source about the amount of people that die in wait lines" Because no research has been done. But I gave you sources from academic based journals showing that it does happen.
    1
  75. "While Bernie has explained how the public programs will get their funding," It took a Denmark guy during the debate against Cruz to get Bernie to admit he would have to raise taxes on everyone. "My other points are that you mainly want to enforce limited government on ecomonic policy only," Not true. "poor people can't afford gated communities" They can't afford a lot of things. Social Security is running out of money. Even Bernie admits that.
    1
  76. Deez nuts, i support a flat tax federally or even a tax on the states like we had before 1913. Why are there loopholes and tax cuts for corporations? Because of the complex tax code you allow the government to create.
    1
  77. "If I quit my job it means I give up my insurance. I cant give up my insurance and I am bound to my job by that insurance. " I fee that is a major problem with our healthcare system in our country. That issue exist because of government making healthcare insurance as a tax free way to pay employees. You don't fix this problem with more government, you fix it with less government.
    1
  78. Isaac M, making healthcare a right is slavery as you have to force someone to provide it, like jury duty. You call jury duty you "civic responsibility". It is done by force. You cannot deny that.
    1
  79. Define "fair treatment".
    1
  80. Isaac M, a stop light is different. I don't have to drive. When I do drive I am interacting in public thus a stop light is considered a median between allowing for free movement and maintaining control. But in the end I don't have to drive. Jury duty is force. You are paid for jury duty but if you refuse you go to jail. There is a very high incentive to go into medicine.We lack doctors because many people don't want to do the work or simply can't.
    1
  81. Isaac M, roads are locally ran and funded. Also, compared to healthcare roads are not complex at all. Last I checked construction workers don't have to take 10 years of construction school. In many places, like in my hometown, the garbage is a private entity. Water is locally ran as well. "Where have you ever seen lack of regulation actually provide protection for people? " Lack of regulations would have limited the powers of the federal government where government has done a lot of harm. "This narrative of less is more has proved false" Not true.
    1
  82. Raizhen010, that was one incident, and it does not seem to be major as guess what......they still have a private fire department. Volunteers are the same as there is not tax dollars involved. As for concrete, why do some people place rocks around camp fires? Why are fire places, many of them, made out of bricks? Your fire department argument is weak.
    1
  83. Deez Nuts, so you don't support the creation of wealth?
    1
  84. Deez Nuts, if you had a publicly financed campaign outsiders like Bernie would never stand a chance. Establishment politics would create rules to favor them in financing.
    1
  85. Deez Nuts, right are actually limitations on government. Government cannot take away rights without due process. Rights protect you from government. Government is not protecting your rights. You are confused on this. Also, you complain about large businesses and how bad they are, people like Tracy and myself complain about large government and how bad they are. You are supporting large government and justify it as long as they take down large businesses. You don't care how as long as they do it.
    1
  86. " I support the fact that wealth, like matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed," Not true. What is oil worth? In reality not much until it is refined. What is a building worth? Not much until it is developed into a business. "Publicly financed elections are supposed to treat all candidates including outsiders equally." So if 100 candidates decided to run we should just spend all that money?
    1
  87. Deez Nuts, oil is worthless until it is refined. That requires investment and work. Same with the building. "Also, would 100 candidates ever decide to run?" Why not? However, you have not countered the other point on how established politicians would just change the rules so they only get the money. Just like closed primaries, it can be set for only democrats and republicans.
    1
  88. Tracy, I agree about Deez. He just changed the topic to the BP oil spill now. He has no argument.
    1
  89. Raizhen010, who would control public funded campaign? The government. The established politicians. They would create the rules. I was never against universal background checks, but that is a different point. Also, they exist already.
    1
  90. Raizhen010, you shrink government by placing restrictions on them. You do that to the federal government and you give more powers to the state and local government. At the state and local level you can control government easier and have it so it fits the needs of that society. And if they fail people can move to another state and remain US citizens. You feel we can give more power to the federal government but continue to complain about corruption. You claim that all we have to do is elect the right people. Are there 535 "right people" running for congress? Think about what you are doing. You are similar to the spouse with the alcoholic, abusive husband that refuses to leave. To where you solution is to still supply him with alcohol and keep coming back home and even going farther and having a kid with him. That is who you are. Government is abusing their powers and your solution is to give them more.
    1
  91. "No Libertarian ever answers this question. Even if I were to buy the theory that small government equals no corporate and wealthy influence, which I don't, how do you get there without eliminating that influence to begin with? " It has been addressed. If the federal government is limited in their powers it cannot be bought. For example, I support a federal tax of either taxing the states like we did in the past with no income tax, or a flat income tax with no loopholes along with a consumption tax. If you had that in place no matter how much money Wall Street or Goldman Sachs gives to the federal government they cannot create loopholes to favor the rich. They cannot change the income tax rate as it is the same for everyone. If you want your progressive tax than do it at the state level. You set the restrictions of where the federal government set the tax rate but it would have to change for everyone. Having a flat tax means everyone is taxed at the same rate. It can be 10%, 15%, 20%, etc. That's it. If the rich were to give the federal government money to create a loophole where the rich pays only 10% and everyone else pays 15% that would not be allowed as the government would not have that power. They can give the federal government all the money they want, they won't get any special favors. "Literally something like a universal background check has 90+% approval and yet because of the NRA's money, it doesn't get done" We have background checks. That is a non issue. You have a democracy, it is called the state governments. I want money out of politics as well. I just realize that in order to do so you have to limit their power. If the government has nothing to sell no one will buy anything. Do you buy a hamburger at Jimmy Johns? No. Why? Because they don't sell it.
    1
  92. Raizhen010, care to give me a quote on the background checks part?
    1
  93. Raizhen010, so no proof. Ok, I will take that as a victory for me. Gun confiscation is an issue. A democratic law maker is pushing for it now. "A politician bought and paid for is not going to vote for limiting his own power to help his donors. " You create the limits to begin with. You have checks and balances. In fact, that is what the Constitution does. Despite our corrupt politicians we have checks and balances to limit our government. But I find your comment ironic. Why would a politician vote for public financing? And if we had it, why would they vote in favor of the public financing you want? You are basically saying there is nothing we can do at that point. Why would politicians vote to remove money from politics? I am still waiting for this concrete that catches on fire. Again, fire places are made of brick. Many place rocks around camp fires. Hmmmm.........
    1
  94. Raizhen010, here you are talking about limit money in politics, I am talking about limiting the power in politics. Apparently your idea is possible but my idea isn't. I am confused now.
    1
  95. Raizhen010, I am impressed. Now what was wrong with what I said? Glancing back at it I am stating the truth. You cannot have background checks on all "gun transfers"unless you have a gun registry. If I were to give my gun up to one of my friends there is no record of me owning that gun, so how do you do a background check? There are a lot of guns out there without an record on them. Also, as we see with that democratic law maker, a gun registry is a stepping stone to gun confiscation. I am still waiting to see you light concrete on fire. As in that Tennessee case, again, they don't seem to have a problem with it as they still have that private system in place. You are arguing against for profit fire department when some exist with no major issues. Fires are easier to control than you think. We have had major forest fires in CA they were able to control and limit damage. But again, if the private fire department system is so terrible, why do they still have it? Also, you never addressed this. You oppose the private fire department and want to enact your will on other cities and feel it is OK. How would you feel if other people forced their way on to you and forced your public fire departments to go private? My suggestion to you, stop trying to be the moral one here as you are not doing a good job at it.
    1
  96. Raizhen010, how am I extreme? I just referenced a democratic law maker looking to confiscate guns. That is a legit concern and you are ignoring it.
    1
  97. Raizhen010, the law makes it illegal to possess an "assault rifle" which can be anything. You joke around with it but they are not denying what the proposed law does. I again ask, how do you enforce universal background checks without a gun registry? None of my guns are registered. I can sell them to whomever I want and it won't come back to me. There are also many incidents of people loaning out guns to others for numerous reasons. Two I can think of personally is that one was giving to my sister when she moved to a bad area of a city. She was given the gun where a background check can delay that. The other was me personally. I gave my gun to one of my friends when I was suicidal. I have since been cured through the proper channels, but at the time I wanted to give it up immediately. A background check would have delayed it. You see, there are several flaws in your ideas. Background checks occur in all guns sales with gun shops, and well over 90% of them at gun shows. The ones that don't happen are internet and personal selling. Now I agree on restricting internet sales, but personal ones you cannot restrict for reasons I just mentioned.
    1
  98. Raizhen010, so when you have no argument you name call and run away. I will take this as a victory for me.
    1