guns guns guns part 2

As I continue the discussion about guns, there's been a lot of debate lately because of a recent school shooting which has raised the issue nationally.

Because the recent mass shooting was at a school, and school shootings are more alarming to the general public, the national discussion is all about school shootings rather than just about mass shootings.  This has led to the NRA making an absurd suggestion: place security guards in schools.  Here's a little bit of why this proposal is insane:

• The Right is who is proposing this... the Right also feels that we should reduce costs, this would certainly add costs for school systems nation-wide as we hire at least 2 people, and often several more, per school.
• Schools are not the only place where mass shootings occur.  In just the last year, we've seen mass shootings at a mall, a place of worship, a movie theater, and a random street (2 cops were injured in a shooting this past weekend when they tried to stop a guy walking up and down a street shooting people).  Are we going to put guards on every street and in every place of gathering?
• The suggestion was made with the rationale that we have armed guards at banks and in stadiums and in some stores, so why not in schools?  Well, see, people aren't tempted to ROB schools, we don't make investments in our schools in that fashion.  People are not only tempted but STILL DO rob banks and stores for the money and goods in them.
• The suggestion was started off with "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" (NRA President, Wayne LePierre).  O.k., then explain to me how an armed guard at a school would be better at stopping an armed bad guy than everybody at a military base (Fort Hood, 2009) or the armed guards at malls.  The truth is, even a good guy with a gun has trouble stopping a bad guy with a gun.

Here's what I would like to suggest instead:

• In my previous post about guns (http://darkwindrising.blogspot.com/2012/12/guns-guns-guns-part-1.html), I listed a number of reasons to be concerned about hand guns, so I would suggest there be some sort of additional controls to assist with guns in the home:
• Nobody says that registration and annual inspections of cars is infringing on car owner's rights, so let's institute registration requirements and annual inspections for guns, this way we can know who has what guns legally.  It's important to note that by far, most homicides and mass murders are committed with legally purchased guns and bullets.  That being said, there are loopholes in the laws surrounding the purchase of guns having to do with gun shows, we should get rid of these... nobody would ever suggest that we have a car show at which we let people to buy cars without going through all the required processes.
• Every person purchasing a gun should be required to pass a practical test.  These should include proper use of the gun both in being able to fire as well as securing it.
• The path we take to reduce mass shootings must be different from the path we take to reduce the more common homicides committed with guns.  The path to reduce mass shootings involves making it harder to do the shoot en-mass.
• Assault weapons must go.  The purpose of an assault weapon is to kill many people, nothing else, so can we make it illegal for individuals to own them?
• Likewise, large clips of ammo only serve to make it easier to kill more people without changing the clip, so let's shrink ammo clips for individuals so that it's a little slower and harder to commit mass murders.
• While we're discussing ammo, we should make it hard to purchase various types of ammo, such as hollow-point bullets and teflon coated bullets

guns guns guns part 1

To start off, I would like to point out that I am in favor of gun (and ammunition) control.  That being said, gun and ammo control needs to be broken down into a few different discussions. 

1. self-defense against individuals
2. hunting/sport
3. defense against other states
4. self-defense against our state

Let's start with the easiest of these, number 3.  The second amendment was designed with this in mind because at the time there was no standing army, nor a plan for a standing army to be created.  The colonists had militias to defend themselves from other nations, it's right there in the first half of the sentence-long amendment.  So, since we don't have a need for individuals to run out of their house to protect the neighborhood from a foreign state, the second amendment is no longer valid.... that being said, it's still on the books and requires some effort to overturn through constitutional amendment, therefore the rest of the discussion in this post will be about what should be and why, not an interpretation of what is currently legal (so those devoted to the second amendment based on it being the law should shut up and just listen for a bit).

Next up, hunting/sport.  This is actually one I'd appreciate feedback on.  I have no experience in hunting or using guns in sport, but it seems to me that hunting is more of a sport when you don't spray the target with bullets and instead have to aim at the target and use skill.  This suggests that military-grade and just below military-grade guns aren't necessary for hunting/sport enthusiasts.  Am I wrong?  In addition, it doesn't seem like extra-large clips of ammo would be required for hunting and hand guns certainly seem like they're not helpful.

Self-defense against our state is an odd one.  Most people in the US understand this to not be needed but there are those who feel that their guns protect them from the oppression that may come down from the US Government.  To these people, I would like to point out that the US military, and indeed, most major city police forces, would overpower them without too much difficulty, unless they were concerned with the loss of human life on the rebel side. 

Self-defense against individuals, now here's a meaty one.  I have several friends who fall back on "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  While this is true, there's more to it than that.  First of all, we could limit guns to police forces and the like, in which case, not only outlaws would have guns.  The usual response is "but what if a little old lady needs to defend herself against an intruder."  I will reply to this with several thoughts:

1. The little old lady needs to be able to fire the gun with proficiency, aka training.
2. The little old lady needs to be able to manage the gun.  I've never fired a gun but from what I hear, they have some recoil that requires strength to manage.
3. It only helps the little old lady if she can get to the gun, get to the bullets, unlock the gun and load the bullets all before the aggressor catches up.  Gun safety (see below for why it's important) requires one to put the precautions in place to make sure you don't become the victim of the gun you have to protect yourself.  But those same precautions make it less likely for the gun to be useful to you in a bad situation.

There's also some statistics I'd like to point out:

• There are on average, in the US, about 26 murders each day using guns (2/3 of the murders that take place)
• There are on average, in the US, about 2 unintentional deaths caused by gunfire each day.
• A gun in the home...
• increases the chance of being killed by firearms 72%
• is responsible for a vast majority of children killed by firearms
• is 22 times more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide, or accident than to be used in self defense
• triples the risk of homicide
• increases the liklihood of suicide fivefold
• an abused woman is 6 times more likely to be murdered if there is a gun in the home

So, given these statistics and facts above, I have to say that guns aren't the answer to making our communities safer.

Responses to school shootings noted

So much to talk about....

Alright, let's start of with recent events.  Last week, there was another school shooting.  A young man went into an elementary school, killed 20 kids and their teacher, who happened to be his mother.  They found a dead family member at his house too.  In the aftermath of this event, people had different responses.

• Gun control advocates posted a lot of comments saying that we should do something to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again.
• People like the NRA: 
• Lashed back saying that gun control advocates were trying to take advantage of a bad situation and that it was playing politics.
• Proclaimed that if there were more guns, we'd be safer (e.g. if the principal had a rifle in his office)
• Touted the second amendment as they always do, saying that the gun control advocates were trying to curb their rights provided in the Bill of Rights.
• Others responded that we should not play politics with situations like this and we should simply show our support for the families who had lost children.

I will respond to each in turn, as each has a flaw:

• To the gun control advocates (full disclosure, I am one): There are several battles to be waged, and each one has a time and place.  I've seen a lot of discussion of generic gun control discussion going on, but whenever there's a shooting like this one, the person persecuting the crime wouldn't have been prevented from having a gun even if we had most of what we wanted.  Instead.  I would suggest focussing on the really troubling issue:  shooters often carry multiple guns, but they do most of their damage using semi-automatics with large clips of ammo.  It doesn't take long to reload, but it takes time, and that's time they're not a threatening to those who would stop them. 
• Ah... "gun rights advocates"... there's only so much of your b.s. that I'm willing to take.  First of all, yes, fine, lash back saying that gun control advocates are trying to take advantage.  That's reasonable.  Proclaiming that we're safer with more guns is ridiculous though, and the second amendment has to be twisted around in order to "protect" your rights.
• Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, any of these sound familiar?  That may be because they are the states with the highest violent crime rates of the US.  Or it may be because they also have extremely loose gun control laws.  That's right, the states with THE HIGHEST violent crimes laws have the loosest gun control laws.  Where's the benefit of having guns?  Shouldn't these states have lower crime rates if they have looser gun control laws?
• Second amendment.... oh second amendment.... all right, let's go.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Just over half of the statement agrees with your interpretation.  THE FIRST HALF DISAGREES.  A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of the U.S. because we have a well trained military.  The amendment was put forth during a time when the citizens had to protect themselves because we had no standing military.  "But Peter, what about the right of citizens to protect themselves against the Government."  Are you kidding me?  Name one militia that could go up against the US Military, or really any major city's police force?  Do you think we should have militias that have rocket launchers, armor piercing bullets, and automatic military-grade machine guns? Then shut up!  The second amendment was required once upon a time but is no longer relevant.
• O.k., I understand that we should be respectful, and if I had any friends in Newtown, I'd limit what I say, because they deserve some peace.  That being said, nobody I'm friends with on Facebook is from Newtown.  Also, if responding to tragedy with pushing for improvements to regulations or suggestions that would help avoid those tragedies in the future is poor form, did you complain when people responded to various markets crashing by asking how it happened and looking to improve/rework regulations?  Did you complain when, in response to a nuclear meltdown, people eyed nuclear power plants and asked if there were better security provisions that could be made (such as not putting the waste nuclear rods in a storage tank ABOVE the main reactor)?  Yes, there's a point when we go overboard and should be reigned in, but that doesn't mean we can't have meaningful discussions in reaction to events.  If you have a problem with that, go stick your head further in the sand and stop paying attention to anybody any time anything happens that causes us to pause and reflect to see if there are better ways of doing things.

I'm sure you won't be surprised when I post more about gun control soon, but I've written my fill for the time being.  I'll probably write more before the end of the month. 

"tighten the belt" ... reverse the coin and see what it says

Alright, back to taxes and the conservative statement that in these times of need, government shouldn't borrow and should act like every family does and tighten its belt.  I mentioned in my November 22nd post how ridiculous this statement is based on just the statement's premise and the role of government, but I'd like to investigate the opposite side of the statement.

If in times of need, government should tighten its belt just like families do, what happens in good times?  I actually happen to agree with this side of the coin.  Conservatives suggest that we should lower tax rates when times are good... should workers therefore tell their employers "hey, I can pay all my bills and still have some left over, you should pay me less?"  That's a horrible idea, right?  I completely agree.

In point of fact, in good times, families should invest in their future.  For one thing, you want to invest for college, retirement, a new house, but in addition to those things, families should build up some savings so they are at least a little prepared for emergencies.  The same is true for governments.  Admittedly, they don't have children to put through college or have to retire, but they sometimes have to buy new buildings and vehicles and build infrastructure.  These are investments governments have to make from time to time.  In addition, governments should prepare for economic downturns by building a rainy day fund.

Massachusetts has a rainy day fund that has cushioned the blow of the recent recession, but the problem for Massachusetts is that the residents decided to lower taxes in good economic times instead of recognizing that those good times would not last forever and that we should plan for the future.  In my last post, I commented that we did this and that we should restore our tax rates to pre-2000 levels (in 2012 MA tax rates are 5.3%, in 1999 they were 5.95%).

When times are average, we should make small investments in our future, just as families do.  When times are good, we should make larger investments in our future.  And when times are bad, we should use some of those investments in order to maintain services government provides to people, and even increase some.  We should not cut taxes just because we are bringing in more money than we're spending, just as we shouldn't raise taxes in bad times just because we can't fund everything out of the current tax income.  There must be a balance where we invest when we can and use those investments when we can't pay for everything with current tax income.

Public Transportation in Massachusetts

Year after year, I hear that the MBTA is running a deficit... like that's a bad thing.  First of all, keep in mind this is a government entity, not a for-profit business or even a non-profit organization.  The purpose of this entity is not to make money or provide a service at no cost to anybody that doesn't use it.  The purpose of government is to provide for the common welfare, and it's a good thing for us to have people have access to public transportation.... let's go into some of the reasons why:

1. Environmental: It's true, to some extent, that public transportation is better for the environment than everybody using cars to get everywhere.  I say "to some extent" here because it depends on how many people are using it.  Definitely, when the busses and trains are crowded, it is much more efficient at people-moving, but what about when the bus is less than 1/5 full?  So, rush-hour is definitely better for the environment and off-peak hours are sometimes worse.  So this reason isn't as strong as advocates might claim, but it's still strong.  Nevertheless, the findings from this claim would suggest that we should only have public transportation at busy times.... but that's only thinking from an environmental perspective, and there's more to public transportation than just environmental benefits.
2. Help thy neighbor: Public transportation isn't super cheap anymore, but it's certainly cheaper than some alternative forms of transportation, so it can be seen as a common good in so far as it allows us to more cheaply move about.... but I would suggest this too is not the biggest reason to be in favor of public transportation.
3. Traffic congestion and parking: Now we're talking!  It's all well and good to say that public transportation is good for everybody and it's instinctual to me to believe so, but for the optimal explanation to someone who's not interested in being nice to people and worried about spending tax dollars on things, here's the big explanation.  As you replace cars on streets with people walking/biking/being driven to public transportation, you reduce traffic and you reduce the amount of parking spaces you need everywhere.  When I think about people from Boston or Cambridge coming to Davis Sq. for the evening, I'm very thankful that not everybody has to park there and that many people come by bus or train.  It's worth a little of my money to help this take place, even if I'm not using the public transportation myself.

Alright, so, we've established that having public transportation is in the public's interest, next up, the financing.

First off, we have a general financing problem.  It's not the T's fault that we spent a ton on the Big Dig.  It's not the T's fault that we reduced our tax rates in MA.  Don't burden the T with the debt.  Instead, I would suggest we wipe the slate clean and have all debt for state agencies be consolidated into a general state debt.  Start fresh so we can plan properly and respectfully according to the agencies' needs and our interest in the agencies' support of our communities.

Secondly, we shouldn't use a tax on gas to pay for an agency that is supposed to reduce our need for gas.  That's just ridiculousness.  The budget for the MBTA should come out of the general budget and should not fluctuate with how much people drive.  This would further stabilize the agency, again assisting with being able to make planning possible.

One last item, which I'm sure I'll go into more detail later: Massachusetts tax rates are too damn low.  We, yes we since it was a ballot measure, cut our state income tax in 1999.  The plan was to reduce it from 5.95% (pre-2000) to 5%.  We stopped the decreasing in 2002 until tax income met pre-set amounts at which point we would decrease it by .05% per year.  Let's think about this for a moment.  Why did we stop the reduction in the tax rate in 2002?  Because the US economy faultered.  In point of fact, the US economy was going through a pretty good period in the 1990's.  Between 1992 and 2000, we had a GDP percentage increase of 5% or more 3 times as often as between 2000 and 2008, and we haven't even reached 5% since mid-2006.  So, since we were in time of prosperity, it makes sense that we would be bringing in enough taxes to pay our bills, but we should be using those times to build up our rainy day fund for times like we've been going through every since, where GDP growth has been minimal if any.  It should come as no surprise to anybody that we've been cutting our budget constantly for the last decade, and this is the reason, we saw some good growth years and thought they were average and therefore decided we could shrink our tax rate when in fact we should have been investing more and preparing for average and even lower than average years.  My suggestion, therefore, is that the income tax should be raised back up.