The site has been dark for months, and I apologize, I intend to get back to weekly posts in April. However I have been particularly busy with RL, and this makes me no money… so …
With that said, Starting in april I will be coming back online.
The site has been dark for months, and I apologize, I intend to get back to weekly posts in April. However I have been particularly busy with RL, and this makes me no money… so …
With that said, Starting in april I will be coming back online.
While the new guard of gun control advocates are trying to re-brand their poison, calling it ‘gun safety’ a topic they know nothing about, another kid went and killed someone. Once again making news, unlike all those people killing themselves in the ghetto. I decided I would try to pitch this from a new direction.
FBI stats suggest that annually 2-4% of all crime is committed with a firearm someone legally owned. This is determined using the FBI UCR and the state numbers for revoked licenses.
In this nation somewhere between 75,000,000 and 115,000,000 people own firearms.
There are approximately 12,200,000 arrests made in 2012. Assuming every single one of them was a crime. This would mean that a maximum of 488,000 were committed by legal gun owners. This 488,000 number is not true, this number exceeds the total number of licenses revoked throughout the nation, which is at approximately 20,000 annually for the. [SOURCE] In addition it is likely some of these arrests were multiple arrests of a single individual.
But let us still look at and use this number, if this was correct it would mean that .65% of gun owners would commit crimes annually. The remaining crimes being committed by 5% of the rest of the population. You are at least 8 times more likely to be the victim of a criminal from the non gun owning population than from among those that do, but keep in mind this is maximum victimization rate. If we use the latest numbers on gun ownership [SOURCE] it looks even more lopsided, with you being more than 15 times more likely to be the victim of a non-gun owning member of society. If you used the number of revoked licenses and even assumed that this number was 1/5 the total number of criminal legal owners, you would get a number that is 5 times higher, you would be 75 times more likely to be victimized by normal society than by any gun owner.
I see people out there refer to our ‘gun culture’ as being a toxic one. Sheer numbers suggests that it is the non-gun culture of our nation that is toxic. One should expect gun owners to commit 25% of all crimes as they account for no less than 25% of the population. Yet this is not the case, gun owners typically are more responsible people than non-gun owners are.
In the darkness of yet another tragedy, everyone wants to do something but you never hear about gun control when it is criminals shooting each-other or innocent people. You only hear about it when the bullied kid, or the sick mind decides to go on a rampage, despite these accounting for less than 1% of all gun crimes. It says something about the morality of people that push for this type of legislation.
I don’t usually do two posts in one day, but I had this in one of my feeds on Facebook today and when I responded, to the OP with a minor point, they asked for more and I thought about it and decided this does earn more of a response than the one I gave simply.
So here is a better response to Jackson Katz, one that will address his speech on a point by point basis.
With respect to your education, you must be one arrogant man to decide the idea that you are pitching right now is somehow paradigm shifting. That is something for the future to decide, not you in your current place. Unless the paradigm actually shifts, you’re giving too much importance to the ideology you are currently espousing.
That first part being said, I agree with the beginning of your concept (@~2:28) that calling the issue women’s issues is rather limiting to the conversation. That in fact the issue, for those who have not yet watched the video is violence, is not a “women’s issue”. However calling it a men’s issue isn’t correct either. It is a human issue, pure and simple. Violence is part of the normal attitude of most predator species on the planet, and humans are no exception to this rule. The idea that violence is primarily associated with men, a fact, however is blame placing. Testosterone, is a major factor in the existence of violence. Blaming inherent biology for violence is misleading, women do engage in acts of violence as well. In women it can be caused by either testosterone, or an imbalance of Estrogen/Progesterone.
In addition while men’s violence is usually out right aggression, in women it tends to be more subtle, emotional violence if you will. The stereotype of the hen-pecked husband didn’t come into existence on its own. The concept of men having been emotionally beaten by their wives has been around forever. I think we would both agree this is abuse, and that it isn’t uncommon.
“Which is to say the dominant group is rarely challenged to even think about it’s dominance… the ability to go unexamined” (@~3:29)
Ah, yes, the new old trap of privilege. In western society we have so challenged the idea of a group in power that we have legislated equality. We have made it a civil offense to treat the one group as being privileged, how dare you and your ilk insist that any group even has a privilege! I see similar arguments all the time, regardless of the topic at hand, and they all lack one important thing, factual data supporting it. I wouldn’t be so crass as to argue that this method of thinking was never true, it certainly was, but it no longer is. Almost half a century, and two standard generations, have passed since this argument held any water. Today this is a ‘feel good’ statement used by people who won’t succeed, to explain why they haven’t. Notice i didn’t say “can’t” succeed, I said won’t, success comes from hard work, and effort, something that too many in today’s western society refuse to accept, feeling instead that they are entitled to luxury simply by the nature of being born. The entire point of you phrasing things this way is to elicit an emotional charge, and while that may be fun and profitable for you, it isn’t a good way of getting rational people to side with you.
(@~4:14) As far as your take on the language is perceived, you have read it completely incorrectly. What happened isn’t the removal of men from the discussion, but rather a deliberate and successful attempt to create greater empathy for the victim who was abused. I am not going to morally judge that, because in the effort to increase empathy for the victim, we have managed to loose the anger for the perpetrator. We now feel bad for this Mary in your story, but less anger for John, since he isn’t part of it.
(@~6:00) First off, ‘victim blaming’ happens to every single person who was the victim of a crime. Any crime, every crime. “What were you doing there when your car was stolen” or “Why were you walking down the street at 2 AM when you were mugged?” are common questions. It is this simple, ultimately only you are responsible for your own safety, not me, not the police, not the army, not the government.
As far as asking about Mary not getting us anywhere, you are dead wrong. Let me put a good example for you, Mary is a battered woman, because she tried to stab her husband after a fight over the bad lasagna he made, and he defended himself.
Woah, wait a minute, context does matter sir. Her context as well as his. So yes questioning the victim as to why they did what they did is valid. Is this a rare case? We don’t know, but famously there was a case that made national headlines recently. You read that right, she beat him.
The fact is that most people who are the victims of crime are partially responsible, they put themselves in a place or situation that they knew was dangerous beforehand.
As to your question why are so many people raped? For starters we have redefined rape, see here , what used to be an act without consent, has been redefined. Now we determine that people can not consent under certain circumstances, rightly or wrongly, and this has become rape. So yes the number of rape victims has gone up. But much like the idea that we aren’t teaching men not to rape, the idea that we don’t need to teach women to be cautious about their environment is just wrong.
(@~7:40) Good hypothesis, however you are pitching your idea as if it is fact. For those who haven’t watched the video, he is claiming that something is wrong with society that produces men who are violent in particular rapists. We can’t do a baseline comparison of rates of male violence around the world, because of limited data, and differential reporting methods. However you have a good thesis, but unless you can provide data to support it, you are simply not helping the problem. Should this avenue be researched? Certainly. Should we assume that it is a problem with civilization and not biology? No. The fact that you are willing to address these questions is great, but ignoring the other half, the victim half of the equation, does us no good either. Going to a party with a bunch of men alone, and willingly taking mind altering substances is part of the problem, yes the men shouldn’t have done it, but you shouldn’t have made it possible for them to do it either.
I have both a son, and a daughter. I am teaching my son not to rape, and when my daughter is older, I will be teaching her not to get raped. Because making bad decisions does hurt you.
(@~9:00) As far as you finding the term “Feminazi” or “Man-Hater” offensive, two important things. Firstly they are not used as you indicated, though yes they do often come up in discussions of this type, because contrary to your ideal view of your side, there are in-fact women that hate men out there. If you use the term “mansplaining” you’re probably one of them. I could go on and on listing the types of people that fit these categories, but won’t. Secondly, this isn’t about ‘killing the messenger’ as much as that is how you wish it were, if it were you would be completely correct in your assertion. While I agree these terms are used in ad-hominem attacks, which are generally weak, they are most often used when the person’s ideas are clearly not in line with reality. For those women who want ‘equal but superior’ rights, after all we know some people are more equal than others, if you will pardon the paraphrase.
(@~9:40) Give me one example of something men can say that women can’t? One example, where a woman will be called sexist, but a man wouldn’t? No it isn’t true, not in any way shape or form.
(@~12:00) I agree, in theory at least with what he calls “the bystander” approach. In fact recently I convinced my wife to join in an activity at work, where she learned a lesson and decided to, as a result, no longer tolerates third party homophobic speech. My wife managed to gain a large amount of empathy by going to an anti-gay-bulling rally at her job, where she was one of the few straight people who attended. The idea of standing up for people who aren’t there is a truly good one, and the fact is there is more of this going on than he might think.
@(~14:45) Jackson Katz, how you know nothing of male culture at your age is a major question. The entire male culture is built around the idea that we do challenge each other, constantly seeking a pecking order if you will. Men do stupid things for a variety of reasons, but almost always it is to challenge their peers.
In recap, we have a man here who fails to understand the basic premise of ‘male society’ as he puts it. Contrary to what he wants to believe, and what I have seen commented on Facebook, the truth is much more complex. Humans are biological machines, very much at the whim of the neurotransmitters they get, which are in turn controlled by hormone releases. While you do have some limited capacity to override these commands, the prevalence of addictions shows that it is not always possible for people to overcome them. In fact any person can become addicted to something. The very hormones that make us humans also put into us a sometimes uncontrollable urge to violence. The fools that think every human can control this urge are just that, fools. Can the majority of us? To some degree yes, but not completely. You get angry, you think nasty thoughts, great that is your limit on this particular event, however there are some people who don’t have that limit. And while it is sad that there are people who can not function in a normal society, it is a fact. There will always be people who turn to violence, and simply educating it away is not a realistic approach. You think I am wrong, tell the next heroine addict you talk to “simply don’t inject it.” and see how well that works.
Edited to add sources to this discussion that I thought were irrelevant, and unneeded, however someone called me out on them, and as such sources provided.
Since the middle of the Vietnam Conflict, the media in the U.S. has had a definitive leftist bend to it. The owners of the major networks have been major contributors to the Democratic Party since this period. Remember the Tet Offensive? How disastrous it was for the US? History teaches it as though the NVA won a major victory, the reality however was quite different, had the US pushed the war after the Tet Offensive was over, the war would have been a victory. But the media told us we lost, and the people believed it, the military knew better.
Internationally many nations of the world have been moving more and more left, closer to socialism over the past three decades. Labor and socialist parties dominate most of European politics. What about here in the United States? The Democratic Party is essentially pitched as a labor party and given that it is owned partially by labor unions, it is one. For the last few decades most cities have been controlled by the Democratic Party, and Unions donate to it, almost exclusively.
The college campuses across the nation, and around the world, include a large number of liberal groups, and liberal propaganda. The nations schools teach half-truths when it comes to history. How many adults remember hearing about Vietnam, and how we should have learned our lesson in Korea? The thing is, we beat the North Korean Army, we were driven back by a full scale Chinese invasion of the peninsula, and we managed to push them back as well, until certain politicians were convinced to end the conflict, wisely I might add.
Literally everywhere you look, the media, the colleges, and the inner cities, a pro-liberal/progressive message is the one that is broadcast to you. The idea that you are more tolerant or open minded as a liberal has been pitched to you since birth by every major media outlet. Yet despite this truth Liberals not only think they aren’t brainwashed, they think that conservatives are the ones who are.
Brainwashed by what? All the movies made are written by, filmed by, and acted by liberals, there are so few conservatives in Hollywood it actually makes news when one comes out as such. Libertarian views are often laughed at in the public circles around Hollywood.
How is it that the Koch Brothers have brainwashed the Libertarians and Conservatives, but the entire media establishment hasn’t brainwashed a single Liberal thinker? The idea that we are brainwashed by our side, which has no way of spreading its message, but that the progressive/socialist/liberal hasn’t been brainwashed by over 40 years of media coverage movies and television, and popular media is insane. No rational thought process can bring you to this conclusion.
Indeed if we analyze the speech of our opponents we can find as this video clearly shows, that they do in fact speak as though they have been indoctrinated.
This raises a good question, how do we deal with reeducating people who have been so heavily brainwashed by decades of toxic media, in particular when the media itself has been progressing so slowly to the left, and is still in the hands of the very leftists that are now undermining society, for their own profit?
Let me give you an example of government math, a short but very demonstrative example.
I will make up the numbers as I go, the point here is to show how your government thinks, and communicates, not to analyze the actual numbers.
If this year, the government collects 10,000,000,000 in taxes. The first thing it will do, is write a budget for next year that spends 11,000,000,000. It will borrow the extra money by borrowing, selling bonds, etc.
Most of the money spent, and just to keep the numbers clean we will call it the full 10,000,000,000 will be put into the government, sent to government workers, contractors, military expenditures, etc. In real life some of the money goes to pay down previous debt, etc. but I am intentionally making this simple, to show the example.
Let us assume the average tax rate on the spent money is 17%
The next year the government will claim to have received 11,700,000,000 in tax revenue.
See the problem yet? ( This includes 10% of the tax money from the previous year.)
So what does government do? Why it writes a new budget, based on the new tax receipts. Perhaps $13,000,000,000.
Government currently carries a debt of $1,000,000,000 from the previous year, and now has just increased its debt by another $1,300,000,000. The debt gets larger and larger. In addition the next year it claims receipts of $12,210,000,000.
Granted I have assumed no economic growth on the outside, and this is unrealistic, but the thing to notice is that government is counting money that it never spent, as new revenue each year and compounding it. It bases the next budget on the previous years tax revenue using this formula. Does the money exist? Well in one sense yes, it exists, but in another it really doesn’t it is locked up in the government system doing nothing. It gains no interest on a bank account, it doesn’t go into the economy and get spent, it isn’t invested. It just sits there each year, making the tax receipts look larger than they are. This happens year after year.
It is an interesting question, how much of our current tax receipts are made up of this dead money in the system? What could be done with just this money? What if we assume payments on the debt how does that change the numbers? Let us assume a 10% debt pay down.
First year tax receipts $10 Billion
Second year Budget $ 11 Billion
Second year tax receipts $10.9 Billion
Third year budget $ 12 Billion
Third Year Tax receipts $ 10.99 Billion
As you see, the amount of ‘dead’ money rises, but slower initially. Yet the budget increases are about the same. More money spent, bigger debt, bigger pile of unused cash being counted as government income.
This would be like you counting your savings account at the end of each year as new income, don’t do it the government will tax you, but that is the equivalent of what it is. Money they don’t actually spend from the previous year, being counted as revenue and a new budget being drawn up based on that.
Allen was a former Army Reservist.
Christopher Dorner, the LA cop killer, was a Former Navy Reservist.
Aaron Alexis, the Navy Yard killer, a former Navy Reservist.
These three men, also have gone on to try to , or successfully kill people. Alexis got 12, Dorner a few, and Allen managed to injure an Oregon State Police officer after being pulled over for speeding.
The LiveLeak video above shows the 30 second shootout, and then Allen escapes in his car. Honestly the officer made a mistake, Allen was clearly hiding his right hand behind his back, the officer should have, once he refused to get back in his car, the officer should have noticed the concealed hand, and drawn and ordered him down. I am happy the officer was fine, and only slightly injured, and I realize they do have strict rules about drawing a weapon for the police, however any rational person would have noticed the concealed hand.
But this article isn’t about a single shoot out, in just the last year at least 3 former reservists have taken it upon themselves to go out and kill. This begs the question, is there a problem that needs to be addressed in the reserves?
It would be interesting to see how many more of the 11,000+ murders last year were committed by former reservists, indeed by former military members. This might show if there is or is not a problem here. But the number of high profile murders by former reservists in the last few months, is rather alarming. The key focus there should be ‘high profile’ things that make the news and get noticed.
I wonder what gun control advocates have to say about this one? I wonder, as I don’t even have the information yet, if Allen owned his gun legally.
Add this to the data suggesting that former soldiers are being picked up by cartels in Mexico for dirty-work and we might have a serious problem with the quality of our military, either in entrance or in training.
A two-fer because these men fought and died together.
MSgt. Gary Gordon
Master Sergeant Gordon, United States Army, distinguished himself by actions above and beyond the call of duty on 3 October 1993, while serving as Sniper Team Leader, United States Army Special Operations Command with Task Force Ranger in Mogadishu, Somalia. Master Sergeant Gordon’s sniper team provided precision fire from the lead helicopter during an assault and at two helicopter crash sites, while subjected to intense automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenade fires. When Master Sergeant Gordon learned that ground forces were not immediately available to secure the second crash site, he and another sniper unhesitatingly volunteered to be inserted to protect the four critically wounded personnel, despite being well aware of the growing number of enemy personnel closing in on the site. After his third request to be inserted, Master Sergeant Gordon received permission to perform his volunteer mission. When debris and enemy ground fires at the site caused them to abort the first attempt, Master Sergeant Gordon was inserted one hundred meters south of the crash site. Equipped with only his sniper rifle and a pistol, Master Sergeant Gordon and his fellow sniper, while under intense small arms fire from the enemy, fought their way through a dense maze of shanties and shacks to reach the critically injured crew members. Master Sergeant Gordon immediately pulled the pilot and the other crew members from the aircraft, establishing a perimeter which placed him and his fellow sniper in the most vulnerable position. Master Sergeant Gordon used his long range rifle and side arm to kill an undetermined number of attackers until he depleted his ammunition. Master Sergeant Gordon then went back to the wreckage, recovering some of the crew’s weapons and ammunition. Despite the fact that he was critically low on ammunition, he provided some of it to the dazed pilot and then radioed for help. Master Sergeant Gordon continued to travel the perimeter, protecting the downed crew. After his team member was fatally wounded and his own rifle ammunition exhausted, Master Sergeant Gordon returned to the wreckage, recovering a rifle with the last five rounds of ammunition and gave it to the pilot with the words, “good luck.” Then, armed only with his pistol, Master Sergeant Gordon continued to fight until he was fatally wounded. His actions saved the pilot’s life. In total 50 Somalian bodies were found at the location. Master Sergeant Gordon’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest standards of military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the United States Army.
SFC. Randy Shughart
Sergeant First Class Shughart, United States Army, distinguished himself by actions above and beyond the call of duty on 3 October 1993, while serving as a Sniper Team Member, United States Army Special Operations Command with Task Force Ranger in Mogadishu, Somalia. Sergeant First Class Shughart provided precision sniper fires from the lead helicopter during an assault on a building and at two helicopter crash sites, while subjected to intense automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenade fires. While providing critical suppressive fires at the second crash site, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader learned that ground forces were not immediately available to secure the site. Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader unhesitatingly volunteered to be inserted to protect the four critically wounded personnel, despite being well aware of the growing number of enemy personnel closing in on the site. After their third request to be inserted, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader received permission to perform this volunteer mission. When debris and enemy ground fires at the site caused them to abort the first attempt, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader were inserted one hundred meters south of the crash site. Equipped with only his sniper rifle and a pistol, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader, while under intense fire from the enemy, fought their way through a dense maze of shanties and shacks to reach the critically injured crew members. Sergeant First Class Shughart pulled the pilot and the other crew members from the aircraft, establishing a perimeter which placed him and his fellow sniper in the most vulnerable position. Sergeant First Class Shughart used his long range rifle and side arm to kill an undetermined number of attackers while traveling the perimeter, protecting the downed crew. Sergeant First Class Shughart continued his protective fire until he depleted his ammunition and was fatally wounded. His actions saved the pilot’s life. Sergeant First Class Shughart’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest standards of military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the United States Army.
I often see, as I roam this internet, a host of fools on both sides of a certain topic discussing the possibility of a 2nd American Civil War. I often give a brief summary of why one side is not as correct as they think they are. I will now expand upon this, and I will inform the other side of why they really don’t want it either.
First and foremost I do not, and will not ever, condone violence for the purpose of political change. I am not a pacifist however, and I realize that from time to time, violence is the only option out there. Even still it is the worst possible option and in the case of our great nation would lead to a situation even worse than that of Syria.
First some numbers.
In the US Military there are:
1,429,995 Total active personnel in the US.
850,880 Reserve personnel
There are a total of 782,300 total police.
In order to simply round out the numbers, I will round to the nearest half-million.
This gives an estimated 3,500,000 total police and military in the US.
There are, based on the Pew Research study, as few as 77,186,383 gun owners in the United States of America. Source : http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/
If only 3% of gun owners were to become involved in a civil conflict, with no assistance from other recruits, this would be 2,315,591 people.
In Afghanistan there were, approximately 30,000 fighters on the enemy side, and 460,000 Coalition fighters including the Afghan National Security force.
A force of 30,000 has kept this war raging against the technologically superior US & allies for over 10 years. Despite being outnumbered from the onset.
Assuming no defections from the military or police, this puts the numbers at 3.5 Million loyal vs 2.3 Million rebellion, this is a good assumption only so far as the government doesn’t alienate the soldiers. Typically in the past soldiers were from more conservative families, though this is no longer the case. These numbers do not account for UN involvement.
Technologically, the opposition, those who claim a rebellion ‘would be over in time for lunch’, point out the air support, the tanks, the cruise missiles, and often the nuclear weapons as their ‘proof’ that the war would be quickly ended. To them I say this; we had all those advantages and more when we invaded Afghanistan, what happened there?
First off, the government would never use nuclear weapons on its home terrain. Doing so would cause the international community to come to the support of any rebellion, and would even turn most rational Americans into rebels, they would then know for a fact that the rebellion was right all along. In addition to the massive amount of environmental damage such an act would yield, this would end any government chance of victory.
Cruise missiles are great for destroying massed troops, and bases, not so much for infantry in dispersed groups, yes they can be used, yes they will inflict casualties, but at a cost of $1 million US per shot minimum, it is not an economical way of winning. In addition there have already been civilian projects to build their own cruise missiles, and the civilian ones cost around $1,000 or a thousand times less. Yes they aren’t as accurate, but they won’t have to be either.
The thing they miss about technology, tanks and air craft are wonderful, is that it requires maintainance. Maintaining a piece of equipment, like a tank/plane/helicopter/drone, requires a base to arm it in, and repair it. It requires fuel tankers be brought to the theater of war, and it requires a supply line. In the US, given the current climate and likely factors involved in a civil war, maintaining these supply lines would be treacherous, far worse than anything experienced in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The US troops are well trained!
So are many of the rebellion, and some of them will be battle hardened as well, having come from the US military. These will likely be the leaders or training leaders. Besides, the training for the past several years has been the same given to soldiers going to Afghanistan, it didn’t help much there.
The bases that drones are operated out of, and airbases used for ground attack, would have to be defended. Pulling a large number of infantry and support away from hunting the rebels. Failure to properly defend these posts would quickly turn bad, imagine if drones and piloting equipment were captured and able to be used. If the base is over run, and nothing is captured, it removes a critical argument point in favor of a quick government victory.
The military will be fighting a constant war against civilians who can strike like the Taliban, only in this case hit more valuable supply lines and bases. This doesn’t bode well for the military.
But what about those who support the idea of a rebellion? A second civil war here in the US will look a lot more like the civil war in Syria than first Civil war. There are a large number of factions, all with different goals. While yes, the Constitutional faction would probably be the largest gaining most, if not all, of the current gun owners it too would have small factions inside it. Those that seek a Christian state and those that seek a Secular state, are just two of the likely disparate factions.
In addition you would have independent groups that would make use of the chaos to try to rise to power. Though small, there is still a communist contingent in this nation, and they live in highly populated areas with large numbers of poor people. These people will seek a cure for the ills caused by a civil war, and communists will provide it. Socialists and Unions which feel threatened by the conflict will also arm up, and likely some type of leftist coalition would rise up. The fighting would be brutal, the death toll unimaginable, and the destruction of lives and property unforgivable.
As you have read this you notice that I have ignored UN involvement and international arms deals. Both of these will of course come into play at some point. However determining the exact result of such interactions would be difficult at best. The UN really doesn’t have a good long term record of stopping this type of action successfully, only when there is a full on international coalition and everyone agrees it is right, does anything happen. Even then you still end up with a significant number of failures. Given the antagonism of many UN members by the US in recent years, it is possible the UN never gets involved due to procedural shut downs by China or Russia, or anyone else for that matter. International arms trade would really only have an effect after the first period of the war, if the rebellion cements itself as something to be supported.
Those people who want to see a civil war, they are truly ignorant of the disaster that awaits, they picture a re-unified United States, back under the constitution. What they will likely get is a shattered nation, run by local war lords, and decades of fighting just to establish a new nation with a new constitution.
This failed to publish when it was supposed to, as I neglected to hit the schedule button.
Published here http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0071606 is a report on the mathematics of gun control, by two professors from UC Irvine.
Over the last three weeks or so, I have been reviewing the mathematics presented in the article. Let me start off with this, their work is actually fairly well done, but they make 1 major mistake in their maths.
They assume that all gun violence goes away when they set their gun ownership (legal) level to 0. This is a major flaw, it gives their article a bias in the direction of 0 gun ownership.
The second assumption is that most murders will simply stop when guns are banned, that is to say that the murderer will not seek another alternative, which is not the case as demonstrated in every nation which has an active ban on firearms.
I had intended to publish new numbers, complete with graphs in this article, and I may at a future date do so, however a quick number crunch just adding in the crimes that statistically wouldn’t go away changes the numbers in favor of more guns, however their end conclusion, that either a complete ban, or complete access is the best option doesn’t change.
Oh my, wow what a wonderful statement. Sounds great. Obama has the economy under control. Or wait, let’s look at that concept for a second. Here is what Politifact says, and it is a telling phrase:
As with any statistics, you have to be careful,
Yes, and we have to know what a deficit is. So let us define the terms the way they are defined by those in power.
The deficit is defined as the difference between tax receipts and the budgeted spending. It is important that people understand that while it is common to use this and debt interchangeably they are not the same thing. The debt is the result of the borrowing needed to cover the deficit each year and is cumulative.
Okay, back on topic. Politifact checked the numbers here, and what they tell us is that the deficit was 10.1% of GDP in 2009 and it is 7% of GDP in 2012. They analyzed the decline and found that as a function of GDP the statement is true. In other words, if we look at the deficit as a function of GDP, then yes we have seen a decline in the deficit, unfortunately any deficit still adds to our national debt.
But what about raw numbers? Pulling information from Wiki here we find that the GDP of the US in 2009 was $13,973,650,000,000 estimated, and $15,684,750,000,000 in 2012.
2009 Deficit approximately $1,411,000,000,000
2012 Deficit approximately $1,097,000,000,000
2009 Debt approximately $11,898,000,000,000
2012 Debt approximately $16,059,000,000,000
Look at all those zeros. This ‘deficit’ game is the trick being played by both political parties, and they have been playing it a very long time. The deficit may be being reduced, but in any year there is a deficit, this means that the debt expands. The debt is what we have to worry about.
I realize the example is weak at best, but imagine if you can: You run your household with a minimal debt every month, eventually the debt gets huge, and you can no longer borrow money. The banks look at your net worth and decide you are too big of a credit risk. The same thing is essentially true of the government. Our government can borrow money cheaply now because its credit score is very good. But as the debt increases and fails to decrease, eventually no one will still loan the government money cheaply. This will actually make things worse, the government will still be able to borrow, but it will cost more to borrow. Loan rates to the consumer will have to go up as the banks borrow from the government and the government now has to pay higher rates. Eventually it reaches a tipping point.
How do we fix it?
We need legislatures in congress, where the budgets are written, to cut funding across the board, and this means to entitlement programs, called non-discretionary spending, first. Why first? Allow me to answer that with this brilliant video from learn liberty.
We need laws that prohibit congress from writing budgets that exceed the average tax revenues from the previous three years. This will allow for some borrowing when needed, but not allow the government to spend significantly more each year than the total income it receives.
We need an increase in taxes, we need to pay down our debts and cuts alone can’t do this in a reasonable amount of time. We need to not pay out more in tax refunds than someone pays to the government, cut the EIC, and several deductions. After we are out of debt we can safely begin to look at cutting taxes to more reasonable levels.
We need to eliminate subsidies across the board, and remove or alter the regulations that are currently choking small business owners. This will allow the economy to expand faster and in turn will generate more tax revenue.
In short, we need to get rid of Democrats and Republicans who can’t seem to keep their hands off the taxpayers money. Eliminate staff for, and withhold pay from all current legislators. That would be a good start at least.
Debt Information from : http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt.htm