Gun Control: Why It Makes Sense

by WashDCDemocrat

Did you guys miss me? I know I've already posted an article on this, but after the Florida School Board Shooting and other recent events, I thought this issue needed revisiting and that critics needed to be refuted.

Argument: Allowing more people to own weapons gives them better protection against violent crime. When assaulted, a person has more of an ability to respond.

While it's true that the wide availability of firearms allows more people to own weapons, it also allows more weapons to go into the hands of people with ill intent. The Department of Justice reported that, in 1993, 29% of victims of violent crimes faced an offender with a firearm. In addition, "most of the guns used in crimes originated as legally sold items" (Steve Steel of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms office in Dallas, qtd. in the Houston Chronicle 1997).

Argument: Controlling weapons does nothing to counter the illegal guns that criminals can acquire. Outlawing guns means that only outlaws will have guns.

Common sense ought to tell us that if fewer people are buying guns (as fewer people would with gun control), output of guns would go down, and prices would go up. If that is the case, the number of illegal guns ought to remain the same. A recent incident in France, where several school children were held hostage by a sword-weilding youth, drew the normal snide remarks of "enstate a sword ban!" The fact is, however, without strict gun laws, the story could've just as easily been one of a youth weilding two handguns rather than two swords.

Argument: Criminalizing or controlling guns is the action of a government fearful of its people. It is the first step towards ensuring that civil liberties can be violated without any response of the citizens.

The fact is, the government does fear its citizens - but not in the sence that there will be a revolution. The fear is that a person may follow the path of the Florida School Board shooter, using a legal gun to commit illegal acts and put innocent lives at risk, which is a valid fear. What isn't valid is hyper-paranoia of government actions impeding on ordinary life. As people, we have to understand that our drunk neighbor toting a shotgun is a much (if not more) of a threat than a nameless, faceless FBI agent.

I don't, by any means, support an outright ban on gun ownership (though that would solve a number of problems I outlined above) simply because of the difficulty involved in enacting such a policy. However, nothing stops us from maintaining and enforcing current gun control laws - a responsibility that we owe to our communities and our fellow citizens.

Read more!

Restoring Truthiness

by Eyck Freymann

via Slashdot: A grassroots campaign has begun to get Stephen Colbert to hold a rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to counter Glenn Beck's recent 'Restoring Honor' event. The would-be rally has been dubbed 'Restoring Truthiness' and was inspired by a recent post on Reddit, where a young woman wondered if the only way to point out the absurdity of the Tea Party's rally would be if Colbert mirrored it with his own Colbert Nation

I'm in.

 

Read more!

Eugene Robinson Speaks Wisdom

by Eyck Freymann

Eugene Robinson has an excellent article in the Washington Post today called The spoiled-brat American electorate. I don't want to misrepresent his argument, so I'm not going to paraphrase. Here it is in full. 

According to polls, Americans are in a mood to hold their breath until they turn blue. Voters appear to be so fed up with the Democrats that they're ready to toss them out in favor of the Republicans -- for whom, according to those same polls, the nation has even greater contempt. This isn't an "electoral wave," it's a temper tantrum.

It's bad enough that the Democratic Party's "favorable" rating has fallen to an abysmal 33 percent, according to a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll. It's worse that the Republican Party's favorability has plunged to just 24 percent. But incredibly, according to Gallup, registered voters say they intend to vote for Republicans over Democrats by an astounding 10-point margin. Respected analysts reckon that the GOP has a chance of gaining 45 to 60 seats in the House, which would bring Minority Leader John Boehner into the speaker's office.

My guess is that with a decided advantage in campaign funds, along with the other advantages of incumbency, Democrats will be able to mitigate these prospective losses -- perhaps even relieving Nancy Pelosi of the hassles of moving. But there's no mistaking the public mood, and the truth is that it makes no sense.

In the punditry business, it's considered bad form to question the essential wisdom of the American people. But at this point, it's impossible to ignore the obvious: The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.

This is not, I repeat not, a partisan argument. My own political leanings are well-known, but the refusal of Americans to look seriously at the nation's situation -- and its prospects -- is an equal-opportunity scourge. Republicans got the back of the electorate's hand in 2006 and 2008; Democrats will feel the sting this November. By 2012, it will probably be the GOP's turn to get slapped around again.

The nation demands the impossible: quick, painless solutions to long-term, structural problems. While they're running for office, politicians of both parties encourage this kind of magical thinking. When they get into office, they're forced to try to explain that things aren't quite so simple -- that restructuring our economy, renewing the nation's increasingly rickety infrastructure, reforming an unsustainable system of entitlements, redefining America's position in the world and all the other massive challenges that face the country are going to require years of effort. But the American people don't want to hear any of this. They want somebody to make it all better. Now.

President Obama can point to any number of occasions on which he has told Americans that getting our nation back on track is a long-range project. But his campaign stump speech ended with the exhortation, "Let's go change the world" -- not, "Let's go change the world slowly and incrementally, waiting years before we see the fruits of our labor."

And one thing he really hasn't done is frame the hard work that lies ahead as a national crusade that will require a degree of sacrifice from every one of us. It's obvious, for example, that the solution to our economic woes is not just to reinflate the housing bubble. New foundations have to be laid for a 21st-century economy, starting with weaning the nation off of its dependence on fossil fuels, which means there will have to be an increase in the price of oil. I don't want to pay more to fill my gas tank, but I know that it would be good for the nation if I did.

The richest Americans need to pay higher taxes -- not because they're bad people who deserve to be punished but because they earn a much bigger share of the nation's income and hold a bigger share of its overall wealth. If they don't pay more, there won't be enough revenue to maintain, much less improve, the kind of infrastructure that fosters economic growth. Think of what the interstate highway system has meant to this country. Now imagine trying to build it today.

Fixing Social Security for future generations, working steadily to improve the schools, charting a reasonable path on immigration -- none of this is what the American people want to hear. They're in the market for quick and easy solutions that won't hurt a bit. It's easy to blame politicians for selling a bunch of snake oil. But the truth is that all they're doing is offering what the public wants to buy.

Read more!

Consistency

by Eyck Freymann

There are a lot of things you can say about Ron Paul, but at least he's consistent:

As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. We cannot pat ourselves on the back for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined. --Ron Paul

To the tea partiers who support the wars and advocate cutting spending, "Big Government" must mean the parts of the budget that go to Social Security, Medicare, and non-defense discretionary spending.

Oh, so no Medicare cuts. Apparently ditto for Social Security privatization. So "Big Government" is the remaining non-security discretionary spending. Problem is, that's $447 billion. A lot, but less than 15% of a $3.5 trillion budget. And Obama, defying liberals, capped this "Big Government spending" at 2010 levels for the remainder of his term. 

My question is: if we must cut spending, what programs must go? The National Cancer Institute? Air Traffic Control? VA hospitals? Flood control at the Army Corps of Engineers?

Which government windows must be smashed? Tim Pawlenty stands at the ready with a golf club.

Read more!