🔥 | Latest

Fire, Head, and Police: RESIDENTS OPEN FIRE WITH AR-15, 9MM HANDGUN AND TURN THE TIDE ON 7 INVASION SUSPECTS f SHARE 64 EMAIL g+ SHARE TWEET Baker County Sheriffs Office by AWR HAWKINS 19 Apr 2018 73 Two residents in Glen St. Mary, Florida, turned the tide on seven home invasion suspects by opening fire with an AR-15 and a 9mm handgun One of the alleged suspects was killed, another hospitalized, and a third was treated and released to police News4Jax reports the incident occurred around 4 a.m. Sunday when the suspects kicked in the door, claiming to be from the sheriffs office. Three residents were at home at the time, and two responded by opening fire. The resident with the AR-15 estimates he fired 30 rounds by himself. Two suspects immediately "crumpled to the floor with multiple gunshot wounds." The residents then "retreated to another part of the home" and called 911. One suspect, Corey Lauramore, died of gunshot wounds to his head and an unidentified 16-year-old was hospitalized in unknown condition. Officers found "a heavy amount of dried blood caked on the front steps of the home, a bloodstained mask with a bullet hole through it and a 380 caliber handgun lying nearby." Authorities believe a total of seven individuals went to the trailer Sunday morning. The five charged with home invasion are 24-year-old William Lauramore, 24-year-old Joseph Albino, 20-year-old Zachary Bell, 19-year-old Christian Watkins, and 15-year-old Cayden Lauramore. <p><a href="http://guywithastick.tumblr.com/post/173191183912/play-stupid-games-win-stupid-prizes" class="tumblr_blog">guywithastick</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Play stupid games win stupid prizes </p></blockquote> <p>“BuT wHy Do YoU nEeD aN aR-15???”</p>
Fire, Head, and Police: RESIDENTS OPEN FIRE WITH AR-15, 9MM
 HANDGUN AND TURN THE TIDE ON 7 INVASION
 SUSPECTS
 f SHARE 64
 EMAIL
 g+ SHARE
 TWEET
 Baker County Sheriffs Office
 by AWR HAWKINS 19 Apr 2018
 73
 Two residents in Glen St. Mary, Florida, turned the tide on seven
 home invasion suspects by opening fire with an AR-15 and a 9mm
 handgun
 One of the alleged suspects was killed, another hospitalized, and a third was treated and
 released to police
 News4Jax reports the incident occurred around 4 a.m. Sunday when the suspects kicked
 in the door, claiming to be from the sheriffs office. Three residents were at home at the
 time, and two responded by opening fire. The resident with the AR-15 estimates he fired
 30 rounds by himself.
 Two suspects immediately "crumpled to the floor with multiple gunshot wounds."
 The residents then "retreated to another part of the home" and called 911.
 One suspect, Corey Lauramore, died of gunshot wounds to his head and an unidentified
 16-year-old was hospitalized in unknown condition. Officers found "a heavy amount of
 dried blood caked on the front steps of the home, a bloodstained mask with a bullet hole
 through it and a 380 caliber handgun lying nearby."
 Authorities believe a total of seven individuals went to the trailer Sunday morning. The
 five charged with home invasion are 24-year-old William Lauramore, 24-year-old Joseph
 Albino, 20-year-old Zachary Bell, 19-year-old Christian Watkins, and 15-year-old
 Cayden Lauramore.
<p><a href="http://guywithastick.tumblr.com/post/173191183912/play-stupid-games-win-stupid-prizes" class="tumblr_blog">guywithastick</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p>Play stupid games win stupid prizes </p></blockquote>

<p>“BuT wHy Do YoU nEeD aN aR-15???”</p>

<p><a href="http://guywithastick.tumblr.com/post/173191183912/play-stupid-games-win-stupid-prizes" class="tumblr_blog">guywithastick</a>:</p...

America, Arguing, and Crime: ITS EASY TO FORGET THAT FOR DECADES THE U.S. HAD A HEALTHCARE SYSTEM THAT WAS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD. WE HAD THE FINEST DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS, PATIENTS RECEIVED HIGH QUALITY, AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE, AND THOUSANDS OF PRIVATELY FUNDED CHARITIES PROVIDED HEALTH SERVICES FOR THE PO0 RON PAUL TURNING POINT USA <p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/165630900777/bushmeat-said-when-they-tell-you-how-ghastly" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://bushmeat.tumblr.com/" title="bushmeat">bushmeat</a> said:</p><blockquote><p>When they tell you how ghastly socialised healthcare is, remember what they are saying is absolute bullshit <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253</a></p></blockquote><p>If I had a nickel every time some leftist moron linked to a World Healthcare Organization or Commonwealth Fund study, well, I would have a shitload of nickels.</p><p>Since my previous source’s website is currently down–<a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/142352613032/that-red-guy-montypla-weaselwonderworld">which I’ve used in the past</a> to slap this idiotic notion that other countries’ healthcare systems are somehow superior the US’s private system–I’ll instead point to this <a href="https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa654.pdf">other great explanation</a> by the folks over at CATO on why this pathetic claim is always made by these left-wing think-tanks:</p><blockquote><p><i> The debate over how to reform America’s health care sector often involves comparisons between the United States and other countries, and with good reason. Looking at other countries can help us learn which policies, if any, to emulate, and which to avoid. </i></p><p><i>There have been many attempts at international health care system comparisons.Among the most influential are the World Health Report 2000 published by the World Health Organization, several studies published by the Commonwealth Fund, and individual measures such as infant mortality and “mortality amenable to health care.” Generally in these studies, the United States performs poorly in comparison to Europe, Australia, and Japan. Therefore, scholars often use the studies to argue for adding even more government regulations to our already highly regulated health care system. </i></p><p><i>However, these studies suffer from several problems. First, they often rely on unadjusted aggregate data—such as life expectancy, or mortality from heart disease—that can be affected by many non–health care factors, including nutrition, exercise, and even crime rates. Second,they often use process measures, such as how many patients have received a pap smear or mammogram in the past three years. Process measures tell us what doctors do, but provide only an indirect measure of doctors’ productivity. Third, some of these studies inappropriately incorporate their own biases about financing in their statistics, which makes market-driven health systems appear worse even if their outcomes are similar or better. </i></p><p><i>An additional limitation of these studies is the omission of any measure of innovation. None of the best-known studies factor in the contribution of various countries to the advances that have come to characterize the current practice of health care in the developed world. </i></p><p><i>Every single health care test or treatment must be invented at some point. We would be living in a different world today were it not for the remarkable genius and hard work of health care inventors in the past, as well as investments from government health agencies and pharmaceutical and medical device companies. The health care issues commonly considered most important today—controlling costs and covering the uninsured— arguably should be regarded as secondary to innovation, inasmuch as a treatment must first be invented before its costs can be reduced and its use extended to everyone. </i><br/></p></blockquote><p>Furthermore, from another Glen Whitman <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp101.pdf">article</a>:</p><blockquote><p><i> Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions- some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares. <br/></i></p><p><i> The WHO health care rankings result from an index of health-related statistics. As with any index, it is important to consider how it was constructed, as the construction affects the results. </i><br/></p><p><i> There is good reason to account for the quality of care received by a country’s worst-off or poorest citizens. Yet the Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution factors do not do that.Instead, they measure relative differences in quality, without regard to the absolute level of quality. To account for the quality of care received by the worst-off, the index could include a factor that measures health among the poor, or a health care system’s responsiveness to the poor. This would, in essence, give greater weight to the well-being of the worst off.  Alternatively, a separate health performance index could be constructed for poor households or members of disadvantaged minorities. These approaches would surely have problems of their own, but they would at least be focused on the absolute level of health care quality, which should be the paramount concern. <br/></i></p><p><i> The WHO rankings, by purporting to measure the efficacy of health care systems, implicitly take all differences in health outcomes not explained by spending or literacy and attribute them entirely to health care system performance. Nothing else, from tobacco use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into account. </i></p><p><i>To some extent, the exclusion of other variables is simply the result of inadequacies in the data. It is difficult to get information on all relevant factors, and even more difficult to account for their expected effects on health. But some factors are deliberately excluded by the WHO analysis on the basis of paternalistic assumptions about the proper role of health systems. An earlier paper laying out the WHO methodological framework asserts, “Problems such as tobacco consumption, diet, and unsafe sexual activity must be included in an assessment of health system performance.” </i></p><p><i>In other words, the WHO approach holds health systems responsible not just for treating lung cancer, but for preventing smoking in the first place; not just for treating heart disease, but for getting people to exercise and lay off the fatty foods. <br/></i></p><p><i> Second, the WHO approach fails to consider people’s willingness to trade off health against other values. Some people are happy to give up a few potential months or even years of life in exchange for the pleasures of smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports, and so on. The WHO approach, rather than taking the public’s preferences as given, deems some preferences better than others (and then praises or blames the health system for them). </i></p><p><i>A superior (though still imperfect) approach would take people’s health-related behavior as given, and then ask which health systems do the best job of dealing with whatever health conditions arise.<br/></i></p></blockquote><p>In other words, its a bunch of meaningless cherry-picked measurements framed in a way to make the private system appear terrible in order to push for more socialized medicine.  </p><p>Despite all of it’s flaws, which are usually thanks to government market intervention, the United States still has the best health care system on the entire goddamn planet per capita.  It’s most likely that the life-saving equipment and procedures that are used in other hellholes using slave healthcare to save lives are thanks to us.  </p><p>You’re welcome.</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/b97a460c917c68f3900de0bc46e50c59/tumblr_inline_owpcxquafE1r1jtxd_540.gif" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"/></figure></blockquote>
America, Arguing, and Crime: ITS EASY TO FORGET THAT
 FOR DECADES THE U.S. HAD A
 HEALTHCARE SYSTEM THAT WAS THE
 ENVY OF THE WORLD. WE HAD THE
 FINEST DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS,
 PATIENTS RECEIVED HIGH QUALITY,
 AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE, AND
 THOUSANDS OF PRIVATELY FUNDED
 CHARITIES PROVIDED HEALTH
 SERVICES FOR THE PO0
 RON PAUL
 TURNING
 POINT USA
<p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/165630900777/bushmeat-said-when-they-tell-you-how-ghastly" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://bushmeat.tumblr.com/" title="bushmeat">bushmeat</a> said:</p><blockquote><p>When they tell you how ghastly socialised healthcare is, remember what they are saying is absolute bullshit

<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253</a></p></blockquote><p>If I had a nickel every time some leftist moron linked to a World Healthcare Organization or Commonwealth Fund study, well, I would have a shitload of nickels.</p><p>Since my previous source’s website is currently down–<a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/142352613032/that-red-guy-montypla-weaselwonderworld">which I’ve used in the past</a> to slap this idiotic notion that other countries’ healthcare systems are somehow superior the US’s private system–I’ll instead point to this <a href="https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa654.pdf">other great explanation</a> by the folks over at CATO on why this pathetic claim is always made by these left-wing think-tanks:</p><blockquote><p><i>

The debate over how to reform America’s
health care sector often involves comparisons
between the United States and other countries,
and with good reason. Looking at other
countries can help us learn which policies, if
any, to emulate, and which to avoid. </i></p><p><i>There have been many attempts at international
health care system comparisons.Among
the most influential are the World Health Report
2000 published by the World Health Organization, several studies published by the
Commonwealth Fund, and individual measures
such as infant mortality and “mortality
amenable to health care.” Generally in these
studies, the United States performs poorly in
comparison to Europe, Australia, and Japan.
Therefore, scholars often use the studies to
argue for adding even more government regulations
to our already highly regulated health
care system. </i></p><p><i>However, these studies suffer from several
problems. First, they often rely on unadjusted
aggregate data—such as life expectancy, or
mortality from heart disease—that can be
affected by many non–health care factors,
including nutrition, exercise, and even crime
rates. Second,they often use process measures,
such as how many patients have received a pap
smear or mammogram in the past three years.
Process measures tell us what doctors do, but
provide only an indirect measure of doctors’
productivity. Third, some of these studies
inappropriately incorporate their own biases
about financing in their statistics, which
makes market-driven health systems appear
worse even if their outcomes are similar or better. </i></p><p><i>An additional limitation of these studies
is the omission of any measure of innovation.
None of the best-known studies factor in the
contribution of various countries to the
advances that have come to characterize the
current practice of health care in the developed
world. </i></p><p><i>Every single health care test or treatment
must be invented at some point. We would be
living in a different world today were it not
for the remarkable genius and hard work of
health care inventors in the past, as well as
investments from government health agencies
and pharmaceutical and medical device
companies. The health care issues commonly
considered most important today—controlling
costs and covering the uninsured—
arguably should be regarded as secondary to
innovation, inasmuch as a treatment must
first be invented before its costs can be
reduced and its use extended to everyone.

</i><br/></p></blockquote><p>Furthermore, from another Glen Whitman <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp101.pdf">article</a>:</p><blockquote><p><i>

Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions- some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

The WHO health care rankings result
from an index of health-related statistics. As
with any index, it is important to consider
how it was constructed, as the construction
affects the results.

</i><br/></p><p><i>

There is good reason to account for the
quality of care received by a country’s worst-off
or poorest citizens. Yet the Health Distribution
and Responsiveness Distribution factors
do not do that.Instead, they measure relative
differences in quality, without regard to the
absolute level of quality. To account for the
quality of care received by the worst-off, the
index could include a factor that measures
health among the poor, or a health care system’s
responsiveness to the poor. This would,
in essence, give greater weight to the well-being
of the worst off.  Alternatively, a separate health
performance index could be constructed for
poor households or members of disadvantaged
minorities. These approaches would
surely have problems of their own, but they
would at least be focused on the absolute level
of health care quality, which should be the
paramount concern.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

The WHO rankings, by purporting to
measure the efficacy of health care systems,
implicitly take all differences in health outcomes
not explained by spending or literacy
and attribute them entirely to health care system
performance. Nothing else, from tobacco
use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into
account. </i></p><p><i>To some extent, the exclusion of other
variables is simply the result of inadequacies
in the data. It is difficult to get information
on all relevant factors, and even more difficult
to account for their expected effects on
health. But some factors are deliberately
excluded by the WHO analysis on the basis of
paternalistic assumptions about the proper
role of health systems. An earlier paper laying
out the WHO methodological framework
asserts, “Problems such as tobacco consumption,
diet, and unsafe sexual activity must be
included in an assessment of health system
performance.” </i></p><p><i>In other words, the WHO approach holds
health systems responsible not just for treating
lung cancer, but for preventing smoking
in the first place; not just for treating heart
disease, but for getting people to exercise and
lay off the fatty foods.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

Second, the WHO approach fails to consider
people’s willingness to trade off health
against other values. Some people are happy
to give up a few potential months or even
years of life in exchange for the pleasures of
smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports,
and so on. The WHO approach, rather than
taking the public’s preferences as given,
deems some preferences better than others
(and then praises or blames the health system
for them). </i></p><p><i>A superior (though still imperfect) approach
would take people’s health-related
behavior as given, and then ask which health
systems do the best job of dealing with whatever
health conditions arise.<br/></i></p></blockquote><p>In other words, its a bunch of meaningless cherry-picked measurements framed in a way to make the private system appear terrible in order to push for more socialized medicine.  </p><p>Despite all of it’s flaws, which are usually thanks to government market intervention, the United States still has the best health care system on the entire goddamn planet per capita.  It’s most likely that the life-saving equipment and procedures that are used in other hellholes using slave healthcare to save lives are thanks to us.  </p><p>You’re welcome.</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/b97a460c917c68f3900de0bc46e50c59/tumblr_inline_owpcxquafE1r1jtxd_540.gif" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"/></figure></blockquote>

<p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/165630900777/bushmeat-said-when-they-tell-you-how-ghastly" class="tumblr_blog">redblood...