Gun advocates seem to have no problems with spamming anyone they know with uninformed diatribes meant to convince others of the importance of America's second amendment rights. They also don't mind discussing how many and what types of guns they own. And while they are more than willing to share this information on most social media outlets they get very testy if they are required to report any of this information to an official agency.
One example of this issue comes from a viral internet rumor that suggests that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires doctors and insurance companies to ask whether an individual owns a gun. First it should be noted that there is no such requirement in the ACA and while it doesn't seem like owning a gun would have much bearing on how a doctor treats you it could certainly impact an insurance company's bottom line. Insurance companies have to take all sorts of data into account when determining what rate to charge you for your coverage. If you have a fire place in your home you will pay more because that increases the chances of a house fire. If you have a security system your rate can go down because it decreases the chances of a break in.
This type of thorough analysis is how the insurance companies balance the risk reward equation of offering someone a policy. If gun advocates truly wanted to put their money where their mouth is they would demand that insurance companies take gun ownership into account when determining their rate. After all if they really believe that owing a gun makes them safer than they should be rewarded with a lower rate by the insurance company. Revolting over the idea that insurance companies could require policy holders to divulge their gun ownership status suggests these advocates know the data doesn't match their rhetoric.
Of course these advocates will argue that they should be free from the government tyranny of being forced to report such information. Luckily for gun owners even if reporting gun ownership to insurance companies became a requirement there is no corresponding punishment for failing to report that information. The only repercussion would come from an insurance company denying any claim surrounding an unreported gun. But beyond that tracking certain types of data such as real estate transactions, corporations with government contracts, and voter registration have long been a function of the government and all of these records are subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. Ownership of certain types of weapons are no different.
So while many might complain about a New York newspaper publishing the names and addresses of local gun owners, advocates who truly believe their own rhetoric would support such a move because if guns act as a deterrent then criminals would be much less likely to break into the home of a gun owner. The house without a gun permit should make for a much easier target. And this is where many gun advocates really show their hypocrisy. They are all for checking the papers of someone with darker skin just in case they are here illegally, or tracking the emails of Muslims because there is a chance they could be terrorist but gathering any information on gun owners in an attempt to prevent gun violence is unacceptable.
The reality is that while the second amendment might guarantee the right to bear arms it doesn't guarantee the right to privacy and this pervasive NRA sponsored idea that the second amendment gives all American's access to a nearly unlimited arsenal without any of the oversight and restrictions that accompany our other constitutional rights is the biggest impediment to solving the American gun violence crisis.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
Rick Snyder's broken promises
If you follow Rick Snyder you know that he is very proud of his "accomplishments" as Governor. Even going as far as to use taxpayer funds to promote legislation he previously termed "too divisive" because nothing attracts new business to a state like leadership that is not only willing to openly retaliate against its opposition but also to completely contradict itself.
Governor Snyder's most recent self promotion involves a collection of corporate investments in Michigan that the Governor claims will create 4,590 jobs. The numbers for this promotion come from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) which is a tax payer funded organization that acts as the states marketing and business development arm.
Unfortunately for the governor, past MEDC job creation projections have severely exaggerated the number of jobs created. According to Michigan Capitol Confidential the actual number of jobs created is around 28% of the MEDC estimate. This means that the 4,590 jobs the governor is promoting will end up being more like 1,285 jobs.
While the governor is more than happy to discuss the $1.1 billion invested by the 14 companies in the report, he seems less interested in talking about the $44 million dollars in tax breaks these companies will receive to create these jobs. Additionally there doesn't seem to be any requirement that these companies use Michigan labor or products made in Michigan as part of their investments. For all we know the materials and labor for these projects could originate from out of state or overseas instead of from struggling Michigan construction and supply companies.
Of course the bigger concern here is the long list of broken promises that these investments exemplify.
The governor ran on premise that his business background would help create jobs in Michigan and he laid out a specific vision for this job creation that he appears to have completely forgotten.
On the campaign trail when asked about government incentives for business the governor stated “As a practical matter, my view is government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers because those incentives aren’t free”. “Basically, they come on the backs of other people having to make up those tax differentials" yet here he is picking 14 different companies as the winners and using taxpayer funded incentives to do it.
In the gubernatorial debate the governor stated that "Government doesn't create jobs" yet his press release regarding the 4,590 jobs coming to Michigan certainly appears to give his administration credit for these jobs.
Also in the debates he was asked about taxing pensions and his response was "That's not how you address tax reform" yet that is percicsly what he did to pay for his 83% tax cut for Michigan businesses. A move that the governor said was made to increase jobs in Michigan yet the number of people employed in Michigan has gone down since this bill was signed into law while the number of unemployed in Michigan has steadily increased since last January.
In a later portion of the debate the governor spoke about his opinion on increasing the tax on gas. His answer to the question was "I don't support an increase in the gas tax" yet just this past week that is exactly what he proposed to improve Michigan roads.
Of course the governor will also point out that he is for "giving the voters a choice" on how to pay for these road improvements yet when the voters chose to repeal the emergency manager law Rick Snyder was quick dismiss the voters choice and sign new legislation that included funding for new government jobs which eliminates the voters choice to repeal the law in the future.
Whether you support the governor or not this list of broken promises is embarrassing and concerning. Rick Snyder came to this job touting his business roots and his ability to turn things around with a laser like focus on "jobs, jobs, jobs" yet his willingness to constantly abandon the ideas that got him elected in favor of big government self-preservation doesn't instill confidence in the leadership capabilities of a man who can now be more aptly described as "One Unprincipled Nerd"
Governor Snyder's most recent self promotion involves a collection of corporate investments in Michigan that the Governor claims will create 4,590 jobs. The numbers for this promotion come from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) which is a tax payer funded organization that acts as the states marketing and business development arm.
Unfortunately for the governor, past MEDC job creation projections have severely exaggerated the number of jobs created. According to Michigan Capitol Confidential the actual number of jobs created is around 28% of the MEDC estimate. This means that the 4,590 jobs the governor is promoting will end up being more like 1,285 jobs.
While the governor is more than happy to discuss the $1.1 billion invested by the 14 companies in the report, he seems less interested in talking about the $44 million dollars in tax breaks these companies will receive to create these jobs. Additionally there doesn't seem to be any requirement that these companies use Michigan labor or products made in Michigan as part of their investments. For all we know the materials and labor for these projects could originate from out of state or overseas instead of from struggling Michigan construction and supply companies.
Of course the bigger concern here is the long list of broken promises that these investments exemplify.
The governor ran on premise that his business background would help create jobs in Michigan and he laid out a specific vision for this job creation that he appears to have completely forgotten.
On the campaign trail when asked about government incentives for business the governor stated “As a practical matter, my view is government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers because those incentives aren’t free”. “Basically, they come on the backs of other people having to make up those tax differentials" yet here he is picking 14 different companies as the winners and using taxpayer funded incentives to do it.
In the gubernatorial debate the governor stated that "Government doesn't create jobs" yet his press release regarding the 4,590 jobs coming to Michigan certainly appears to give his administration credit for these jobs.
Also in the debates he was asked about taxing pensions and his response was "That's not how you address tax reform" yet that is percicsly what he did to pay for his 83% tax cut for Michigan businesses. A move that the governor said was made to increase jobs in Michigan yet the number of people employed in Michigan has gone down since this bill was signed into law while the number of unemployed in Michigan has steadily increased since last January.
In a later portion of the debate the governor spoke about his opinion on increasing the tax on gas. His answer to the question was "I don't support an increase in the gas tax" yet just this past week that is exactly what he proposed to improve Michigan roads.
Of course the governor will also point out that he is for "giving the voters a choice" on how to pay for these road improvements yet when the voters chose to repeal the emergency manager law Rick Snyder was quick dismiss the voters choice and sign new legislation that included funding for new government jobs which eliminates the voters choice to repeal the law in the future.
Whether you support the governor or not this list of broken promises is embarrassing and concerning. Rick Snyder came to this job touting his business roots and his ability to turn things around with a laser like focus on "jobs, jobs, jobs" yet his willingness to constantly abandon the ideas that got him elected in favor of big government self-preservation doesn't instill confidence in the leadership capabilities of a man who can now be more aptly described as "One Unprincipled Nerd"
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
"Lefty" turned righty: tax talk with Phil Mickelson
Conservative media outlets have spent the last 24 hours trying to make Phil Mickelson the poster child for the push back against high taxes only to see their golden goose disappear when Mickelson apologized for his remarks.
The ultimate payoff for these outlets would be for Mickelson to hold a LeBron James like hour long special on ESPN to declare that thanks to the oppressive tax rates in California he is taking his talents to South Beach.
And to make it relatable to the common man they suggest that Mickelson could save something like $8 million if he moved to a state without income taxes. Who can blame the guy right?
Unfortunately this tax utopia doesn't exist. While some states don't collect income taxes from their residents, income tax is hardly the only tax one pays to a state. This sort of selective math exposes how disingenuous the "news" is from these sources.
If you consider the total tax burden by state instead of cherry picking income tax as your only measure you would see that Mickelson's nearly $48 million haul would have been subject to something closer to an additional $1 million in taxes in California than if he had moved to Florida.
One reason for this discrepancy is that California has a property tax rate that is half that of Florida and a quarter that of conservative tax darling Texas.
It should also be noted that tax rate is only one piece of the puzzle when deciding where to put down roots. Safety, for example, is very important and some of the states with the lowest average tax rate also happen to be some of the most violent states.
But even if Phil Mickelson decides to "take his ball and go home" to a different state, California will still be home to over four times a many millionaires as any other state in the US because as much as conservatives obsess over tax rates a lot of people realize the value taxes provide and the pitfalls of over focusing on income tax rates.
So while some in the top 1% may go elsewhere Jerry Brown and congressional Democrats in California, free of the chains of Republican obstructionism, have overseen an unprecedented turnaround resulting in not only balance the budget but a projected a surplus by cutting wasteful spending and increasing taxes on those who can most afford it - or exactly what President Obama has been asking for.
The ultimate payoff for these outlets would be for Mickelson to hold a LeBron James like hour long special on ESPN to declare that thanks to the oppressive tax rates in California he is taking his talents to South Beach.
And to make it relatable to the common man they suggest that Mickelson could save something like $8 million if he moved to a state without income taxes. Who can blame the guy right?
Unfortunately this tax utopia doesn't exist. While some states don't collect income taxes from their residents, income tax is hardly the only tax one pays to a state. This sort of selective math exposes how disingenuous the "news" is from these sources.
If you consider the total tax burden by state instead of cherry picking income tax as your only measure you would see that Mickelson's nearly $48 million haul would have been subject to something closer to an additional $1 million in taxes in California than if he had moved to Florida.
One reason for this discrepancy is that California has a property tax rate that is half that of Florida and a quarter that of conservative tax darling Texas.
It should also be noted that tax rate is only one piece of the puzzle when deciding where to put down roots. Safety, for example, is very important and some of the states with the lowest average tax rate also happen to be some of the most violent states.
But even if Phil Mickelson decides to "take his ball and go home" to a different state, California will still be home to over four times a many millionaires as any other state in the US because as much as conservatives obsess over tax rates a lot of people realize the value taxes provide and the pitfalls of over focusing on income tax rates.
So while some in the top 1% may go elsewhere Jerry Brown and congressional Democrats in California, free of the chains of Republican obstructionism, have overseen an unprecedented turnaround resulting in not only balance the budget but a projected a surplus by cutting wasteful spending and increasing taxes on those who can most afford it - or exactly what President Obama has been asking for.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Gun advocates worst arguments
If you have ever tried to discuss how we can reduce the number of deaths from guns in the US with an ardent gun advocate you know how the conversation goes - of the deep end quickly.
A great example of this is the recent NRA ad. In the ad the NRA suggests that Barack Obama is a hypocrite because the school his kids go to have armed guards yet "your" kids don't. Again on the surface you would say sure, that makes sense. Except the school that the president’s daughters attend have a total of zero armed guards. Additionally over 66% of public schools with an equivalent enrollment as the Sidwell Friends school the Obama girls attend already have a similar form of security.
But those inaccuracies aren't even the worst part of the argument. No, that distinction goes to how calling for armed guards at schools undermines a fix that might actually reduce all gun violence. A fix, by the way, that NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre supports. Enforce the laws that are already on the books.
Unfortunately other actions by the NRA have made this solution exceedingly difficult. Thanks to support from the NRA the process for appointing the director of the ATF was altered. The changes required the appointment be subject to approval the Senate. Since this change there have been zero confirmations to this position, including the blocking of a George W. Bush nominee by three members of the Republican Party.
In addition to this blatant neutering of the ATF at the top the NRA has pushed a litany of other measures making the job of the 2,500 agents (a four decade low) significantly more complicated.
If the answer to fewer deaths from guns is better enforcement of the current laws then adding more mall cops to our schools is the complete opposite of a rational response. Take all of this money and instead of implementing some Star Wars like boondoggle of a program insufficiently aimed at stopping someone in the act of a mass shooting, spend it on the root cause of the problem and prevent that person from ever gaining access to those weapons in the first place.
But while the NRA may be offering some misinformed and ill conceived arguments these arguments seem downright logical when compared with the truly off the reservation advocates who sarcastically suggest "cars, alcohol, knives and food kill more people every year than guns. I guess we should ban those as well?"
And these retorts are so laughable because they completely misrepresent the point of gun control advocates. Almost no one is demanding a complete ban of all guns so why would anyone argue for a complete ban of cars, alcohol, knives or food.
The reality is all of these items already have a number of rules or restrictions that are more oppressive than those currently on guns. You can purchase a semi-automatic weapon three years before you can drink alcohol. There are numerous state laws restricting the size and type of a knife one can own or carry. To own and operate a motor vehicle you must register the vehicle with the state and obtain a license to operate the vehicle. And in addition to things like the New York law banning large soda pop, 99% of schools have as part of their curriculum education regarding various foods and their effects on the human body.
So if we want to start using the restrictions that we have on other potentially harmful products as the standard for guns I imagine most gun control advocates would agree. We should require all guns be registered, all gun owners be licensed, and certain guns be outlawed because as General Stanley McChrystal says there is no "need for that kind of weaponry on the streets".
Regardless of the paranoia of some, the president is not coming to take your guns. He just wants to make a couple changes with the goal of saving as many lives as possible. Resorting to the same mass email hyperbole time and time again doesn't prove gun advocates wrong. It diminishes the value of everything else you say.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Mike Huckabee's war on reality
Mike Huckabee says he has found a new way to make liberals mad. What is his technique? Well apparently because he parroted the concerns from other media outlets regarding the recent lack of women in President Obama's choices to replace outgoing members of his staff, he has taken some heat.
While some liberals may be upset with Mike Huckabee over his comments it seems that he is really missing the point of their furor. Having a Republican complain about the lack of diversity is a bit like the alcoholic who points out how many drinks you had that night - it's irritating for its hypocrisy.
Of course Huckabee fails to mention that the photo he uses as his example happens to include a woman (Valerie Jarrett). He also fails to mention that Obama has appointed two women to the Supreme Court and he doesn't mention that the percentage of women appointed under President Obama far exceeds that of George W. Bush.
And while Mike Huckabee complaining about the recent appointments of President Obama smacks of a pot/kettle problem, how he finishes his rant is what should really irritate liberals.
"I would remind you to review the speeches at the Democratic National Convention. The cry from the podium was not so much for positions of authority, but for free birth control pills and abortions any time, any place, for any reason, and at no cost. The image of women at the Democrat’s convention was that women were utterly helpless unless the government stepped in".
The problem with the statement is how utterly inaccurate it is. While I don't doubt that this is what Mike Huckabee thinks he heard when listening to the speeches at the Democratic National Convention, this is not what was actually said in these speeches and the Mike Huckabee translation sounds a lot like "All your base are belong to us".
And it is this situation where Mike Huckabee is filtering the words of liberals though his evangelical conservative biases, then pretending to understand their meaning, that is what is so irritating.
Because where Mike Huckabee sees free birth control liberals see a fight against a law allowing religious organizations to arbitrarily discriminate. Where Mike Huckabee sees Democrats protecting "helpless" women liberals see a fight against conservative government over reach attacking women’s rights. And where Mike Huckabee sees the murder of an unborn child liberals see the right of any person to remove a collection of cells from their body without a note from their local moral police.
Perverting the liberal message to some 30 second made for conservative TV quip may be a great way for Mike Huckabee to make liberals mad and gain ratings but all the diversionary tactics in the world won't cover the stink of the abismal Republican record on women's rights.
While some liberals may be upset with Mike Huckabee over his comments it seems that he is really missing the point of their furor. Having a Republican complain about the lack of diversity is a bit like the alcoholic who points out how many drinks you had that night - it's irritating for its hypocrisy.
Of course Huckabee fails to mention that the photo he uses as his example happens to include a woman (Valerie Jarrett). He also fails to mention that Obama has appointed two women to the Supreme Court and he doesn't mention that the percentage of women appointed under President Obama far exceeds that of George W. Bush.
And while Mike Huckabee complaining about the recent appointments of President Obama smacks of a pot/kettle problem, how he finishes his rant is what should really irritate liberals.
"I would remind you to review the speeches at the Democratic National Convention. The cry from the podium was not so much for positions of authority, but for free birth control pills and abortions any time, any place, for any reason, and at no cost. The image of women at the Democrat’s convention was that women were utterly helpless unless the government stepped in".
The problem with the statement is how utterly inaccurate it is. While I don't doubt that this is what Mike Huckabee thinks he heard when listening to the speeches at the Democratic National Convention, this is not what was actually said in these speeches and the Mike Huckabee translation sounds a lot like "All your base are belong to us".
And it is this situation where Mike Huckabee is filtering the words of liberals though his evangelical conservative biases, then pretending to understand their meaning, that is what is so irritating.
Because where Mike Huckabee sees free birth control liberals see a fight against a law allowing religious organizations to arbitrarily discriminate. Where Mike Huckabee sees Democrats protecting "helpless" women liberals see a fight against conservative government over reach attacking women’s rights. And where Mike Huckabee sees the murder of an unborn child liberals see the right of any person to remove a collection of cells from their body without a note from their local moral police.
Perverting the liberal message to some 30 second made for conservative TV quip may be a great way for Mike Huckabee to make liberals mad and gain ratings but all the diversionary tactics in the world won't cover the stink of the abismal Republican record on women's rights.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
"Obama to skirt Congress on gun control"
Fox News has found their latest non-story to be outraged about. This time it is in an bold heading titled "19 ways for Obama to skirt Congress on gun control". Yes, Fox News is upset that the guy with the 54% approval rating is bypassing the organization with a 9% approval rating using a constitutionally approved option for enacting change.
Never mind that Barack Obama has only used this power 144 times compared with 291 for George W. Bush, 166 for George H.W. Bush and 381 for Ronald Reagan and never mind that a number of the orders signed by these Republican presidents were also very controversial, letting Barack Obama do what other presidents before him have done is unacceptable and worthy of impeachment according Fox News.
But rather than demonizing the president for how he implements a law Fox News would be better served by focusing on the results of those laws. Polls show 85% of Americans support making all gun sales, even those done by private citizens and those done at gun shows, subject to background checks. This same poll also shows 80% approval for preventing mentally ill individuals from purchasing a gun, 66% support for creating a federal database for gun sales, 54% approval for banning high capacity clips, and 53% support banning on-line sale of ammunition.
If the president's executive orders involve any of these changes it would seem the public will support his actions. So rather than lament the fashion in which these laws are enacted Fox News should present any data that exists that proves these changes don't work. Conversely, if these changes would result in fewer gun deaths then Fox News should demand congress participates in the democratic process and help the president rather than arbitrarily blocking all progress.
Contrary to popular belief among Fox News and their conservative following the president and by extension most liberals have no interest in enacting new laws just for the sake of enacting new laws. If we can prevent gun deaths with changes to our current laws then we should do it. If not then don't. Simple as that.
Never mind that Barack Obama has only used this power 144 times compared with 291 for George W. Bush, 166 for George H.W. Bush and 381 for Ronald Reagan and never mind that a number of the orders signed by these Republican presidents were also very controversial, letting Barack Obama do what other presidents before him have done is unacceptable and worthy of impeachment according Fox News.
But rather than demonizing the president for how he implements a law Fox News would be better served by focusing on the results of those laws. Polls show 85% of Americans support making all gun sales, even those done by private citizens and those done at gun shows, subject to background checks. This same poll also shows 80% approval for preventing mentally ill individuals from purchasing a gun, 66% support for creating a federal database for gun sales, 54% approval for banning high capacity clips, and 53% support banning on-line sale of ammunition.
If the president's executive orders involve any of these changes it would seem the public will support his actions. So rather than lament the fashion in which these laws are enacted Fox News should present any data that exists that proves these changes don't work. Conversely, if these changes would result in fewer gun deaths then Fox News should demand congress participates in the democratic process and help the president rather than arbitrarily blocking all progress.
Contrary to popular belief among Fox News and their conservative following the president and by extension most liberals have no interest in enacting new laws just for the sake of enacting new laws. If we can prevent gun deaths with changes to our current laws then we should do it. If not then don't. Simple as that.
Friday, January 11, 2013
The NRA needs to look in the mirror
If you're the kind of person that hates labor unions because they spend too much time protecting people they shouldn't and put their own interests above the good of others then there are a few things you might want to know about the NRA.
Rather than act as an advocate for responsible gun use and fight for reasonable solutions that reduce the number of gun deaths they have become an organization that supports nearly unlimited access to any and all guns. Here are a few examples of what the NRA has fought for recently.
- The NRA has made is easier for convicted felons to have the right to own firearms reinstated
- The NRA is planning on suing the Tucson Police Department to stop them from destroying guns that they acquired as part of a buyback program.
- The NRA is attempting to repeal a Virginia law which would weaken the states background check requirements.
- Even though 100,000 guns are "stolen" from gun dealers ever year the NRA has made sure that the ATF cannot require dealers to keep a simple inventory of their guns.
- The NRA helped secure immunity to liability for gun manufacturers which has not afforded to knife makers, car makers, alcohol manufacturers, video game designers, film makers, and all of the other industries the NRA use to deflection attention.
- The NRA blocked any attempts to computerize the sale of guns making it so the ATF can't use computers to trace a gun. They also made it so the ATF can't do more than one spot inspection at a gun dealer.
- While the NRA has demanded a national database of individuals with mental illness they have successfully fought against a national registry for gun owners.
- The NRA has helped to make sure there has been no director of the ATF for over 6 years and that the number of ATF agents is at a four decade low.
- The NRA helped craft a law that requires the FBI to destroy background checks within 24 hours - a move the FBI claims "would allow 97 percent of criminal buyers to escape apprehension".
- The NRA has made it possible for individuals to avoid FBI background checks by fighting to keep the gun show loophole.
On top of this the NRA has erroneously decided to point the finger for Americans gun violence problem at Hollywood while hypocritically dedicating a wing of their museum to glorify the guns used in Hollywood movies.
The reality is that the NRA has gone way beyond being an entity that just protects the second amendment rights of "good guys" to a group that has put the survival and spread of their organization as their top priority regardless of the "bad guys" that are helped by their efforts.
The best example of this is their insistence that more guns are the only way to prevent gun violence despite evidence to the contrary. This is like Hostess claiming that the only way to reduce the obesity problem this country faces is for people to eat more Twinkies.
So when the NRA doesn't get the first invite to discussions on how to reduce gun deaths while preserving the second amendment, it’s not because the media, the government, and left wing nuts are out to get them. It’s because the NRA's own actions show that this is a mantel they no longer carries.
Rather than act as an advocate for responsible gun use and fight for reasonable solutions that reduce the number of gun deaths they have become an organization that supports nearly unlimited access to any and all guns. Here are a few examples of what the NRA has fought for recently.
- The NRA has made is easier for convicted felons to have the right to own firearms reinstated
- The NRA is planning on suing the Tucson Police Department to stop them from destroying guns that they acquired as part of a buyback program.
- The NRA is attempting to repeal a Virginia law which would weaken the states background check requirements.
- Even though 100,000 guns are "stolen" from gun dealers ever year the NRA has made sure that the ATF cannot require dealers to keep a simple inventory of their guns.
- The NRA helped secure immunity to liability for gun manufacturers which has not afforded to knife makers, car makers, alcohol manufacturers, video game designers, film makers, and all of the other industries the NRA use to deflection attention.
- The NRA blocked any attempts to computerize the sale of guns making it so the ATF can't use computers to trace a gun. They also made it so the ATF can't do more than one spot inspection at a gun dealer.
- While the NRA has demanded a national database of individuals with mental illness they have successfully fought against a national registry for gun owners.
- The NRA has helped to make sure there has been no director of the ATF for over 6 years and that the number of ATF agents is at a four decade low.
- The NRA helped craft a law that requires the FBI to destroy background checks within 24 hours - a move the FBI claims "would allow 97 percent of criminal buyers to escape apprehension".
- The NRA has made it possible for individuals to avoid FBI background checks by fighting to keep the gun show loophole.
On top of this the NRA has erroneously decided to point the finger for Americans gun violence problem at Hollywood while hypocritically dedicating a wing of their museum to glorify the guns used in Hollywood movies.
The reality is that the NRA has gone way beyond being an entity that just protects the second amendment rights of "good guys" to a group that has put the survival and spread of their organization as their top priority regardless of the "bad guys" that are helped by their efforts.
The best example of this is their insistence that more guns are the only way to prevent gun violence despite evidence to the contrary. This is like Hostess claiming that the only way to reduce the obesity problem this country faces is for people to eat more Twinkies.
So when the NRA doesn't get the first invite to discussions on how to reduce gun deaths while preserving the second amendment, it’s not because the media, the government, and left wing nuts are out to get them. It’s because the NRA's own actions show that this is a mantel they no longer carries.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Pro-Life gun regulations
For years now Republican legislatures across the country have been slowing chipping away at a women's right to have an abortion by adding a litany of unnecessary regulations meant to put legitimate health care operations out of business.
Instead of waiting for the president or congress to implement sweeping change regarding gun laws, Democrats in state legislatures should take a page out of the Republican play book and start chipping away at the availability of guns in their state.
They could start by setting limits on what types of stores can sell firearms. States like Delaware, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wyoming don't allow alcohol sales at the same stores you can purchase toys or groceries at so why should we sell firearms at these establishments?
Next they could require all locations that sell firearms have an area onsite where the purchaser can demonstrate they understand how to properly use the weapon or be given a quick tutorial by a qualified staff member. After all you can't drive a car off the lot without having a license that proves you are qualified to operate the vehicle so why would we sell a firearm to someone that might.
They could also require all stores that sell firearms to have an armed guard on site 24/7 since such a measure is the only possible way to assure that these weapons don't fall into the wrong hands from something like a robbery. Anecdotal evidence proves that gun stores have been robbed before, and given that guns don't kill people they clearly need to be protected.
Additionally they could require that an FBI agent be present for the purchase of any firearm. Instead of letting an unqualified store clerk run an FBI background check the work should be left to the professionals at the FBI. This would limit the number of errors that currently plague the system.
Finally they could also require applicants to be independently screened to make sure they aren't being cocered in to purchasing a firearm. This would stop the pervasive problem of people showing up to a gun store and being forced to buy a weapon that don't want.
Pro-life activists around the country should start emailing their state representatives with their ideas on how to protect everyone involved in the firearms purchase process.
Of course gun rights advocates will be up in arms over these changes but we must make it a priority to protect the rights of the unarmed because they can't protect themselves.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Excuses won't solve gun violence
The problem with discussing gun control in the US is that there is a portion of the country that is unwilling to accept any restrictions regardless of the benefits.
Mention that limits on certain guns should be considered and you are likely to get push back from many suggesting that gun controls in Australia or the UK or Chicago didn't work. Unfortunately none of those claims are true.
In 1996, 12 days after a mass murder left 35 dead, the conservative Australian government implemented new gun control laws and a buyback program that resulted in a 59% decrease in gun deaths over the next decade. Additionally the previous decade had seen 11 mass shootings in Australia and since the new laws went into affect there have been zero.
Similarly after a 1996 massacre the UK instituted a new set of gun control laws. The results show that deaths from firearms dropped after implementation and have remained below pre-control rates for over a decade. But even if the rhetoric were true and gun control laws in the UK had a negative impact it should be noted that the death rate from firearms in the US stands at 10.2 death per 100,000 people while in the UK that number is 0.25 per 100,000. So while the UK laws may not be perfect, it is the ultimate in the pot calling the kettle black to suggest the NRA "solution" of more guns and less gun control leads to better results.
And while it has been suggested that Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the US they also have a murder rate lower than Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Miami, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Washington DC.
Regardless of the questionable accuracy of these claims a Harvard study shows where there are more guns there are more gun deaths. This suggests more guns do not act as a deterrent as some gun advocates believe.
Additionally armed guards may sound like a good idea but unlike the disturbed individuals that commit acts of gun violence these guards cannot shoot first and ask questions later. This is one of the reasons that mass shootings occurred at Columbine and Virginia Tech even though armed security guards were present. Armed guards are often outgunned in situations such as these. Expecting armed guards or armed citizens equipped with a hand gun to effectively counter the threat from an individual with semi automatic weapons, extended clips, and body armor is completely unrealistic.
Contrary to the fear mongering from groups like the NRA the vast majority of those calling for more gun control are not looking to eliminate the second amendment, they just want some incremental changes to reduce gun violence. Much like the Federal changes to safety for motor vehicles which resulted in a steady decrease in deaths from automobile accidents; we should consider changes that have been shown to limit gun related deaths.
In general American's accept restrictions in a variety of situations because not having those restrictions could have dire results. If you want to vote you must register with the state. If you need drugs for a medical condition you have to get a prescription from a doctor. If you want to drive a car you have to get a license from the state.
Now is the perfect time to examine our current gun laws and see where additional restrictions can save lives. But this can only happen if groups like the NRA admit that an unlimited arsenal of weapons may not be the best possible solution for reducing gun violence.
Mention that limits on certain guns should be considered and you are likely to get push back from many suggesting that gun controls in Australia or the UK or Chicago didn't work. Unfortunately none of those claims are true.
In 1996, 12 days after a mass murder left 35 dead, the conservative Australian government implemented new gun control laws and a buyback program that resulted in a 59% decrease in gun deaths over the next decade. Additionally the previous decade had seen 11 mass shootings in Australia and since the new laws went into affect there have been zero.
Similarly after a 1996 massacre the UK instituted a new set of gun control laws. The results show that deaths from firearms dropped after implementation and have remained below pre-control rates for over a decade. But even if the rhetoric were true and gun control laws in the UK had a negative impact it should be noted that the death rate from firearms in the US stands at 10.2 death per 100,000 people while in the UK that number is 0.25 per 100,000. So while the UK laws may not be perfect, it is the ultimate in the pot calling the kettle black to suggest the NRA "solution" of more guns and less gun control leads to better results.
And while it has been suggested that Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the US they also have a murder rate lower than Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Miami, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Washington DC.
Regardless of the questionable accuracy of these claims a Harvard study shows where there are more guns there are more gun deaths. This suggests more guns do not act as a deterrent as some gun advocates believe.
Additionally armed guards may sound like a good idea but unlike the disturbed individuals that commit acts of gun violence these guards cannot shoot first and ask questions later. This is one of the reasons that mass shootings occurred at Columbine and Virginia Tech even though armed security guards were present. Armed guards are often outgunned in situations such as these. Expecting armed guards or armed citizens equipped with a hand gun to effectively counter the threat from an individual with semi automatic weapons, extended clips, and body armor is completely unrealistic.
Contrary to the fear mongering from groups like the NRA the vast majority of those calling for more gun control are not looking to eliminate the second amendment, they just want some incremental changes to reduce gun violence. Much like the Federal changes to safety for motor vehicles which resulted in a steady decrease in deaths from automobile accidents; we should consider changes that have been shown to limit gun related deaths.
In general American's accept restrictions in a variety of situations because not having those restrictions could have dire results. If you want to vote you must register with the state. If you need drugs for a medical condition you have to get a prescription from a doctor. If you want to drive a car you have to get a license from the state.
Now is the perfect time to examine our current gun laws and see where additional restrictions can save lives. But this can only happen if groups like the NRA admit that an unlimited arsenal of weapons may not be the best possible solution for reducing gun violence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
