Clear thinking on mass killings and gun control is slowly emerging

Efforts to prevent future mass killings, like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where 20 children and six adults died last year, continue on Capitol Hill. These efforts, however, are symbolic, not substantive, and focus too much on guns, magazines and related firearms issues, instead of on what causes people to commit these horrible crimes. The key element in these shootings is the mental condition of the killers and what things fostered their desire to kill people, and that must be addressed.

Whatever Congress comes up with will certainly put the liberties and privacy rights of Americans at risk, as limits on 2nd Amendment rights and invasions of private medical information will necessarily be under consideration.

We will not reduce mass shootings by limiting what law abiding gun owners can purchase, since they won't use them to hurt other people. Vice President Joe Biden's insulting implication that people don't really "need" an AR-15, and just want one because of how it feels ignores a basic tenet of the nation that elected him: we have personal liberties here, and that's all the reason we need to buy any gun.

Similarly, a blanket denial of 2nd Amendment rights to those with any record of treatment by or consultation with mental health professionals is excessive.

There has been strong support for the idea that guns, high-capacity magazines, etc. are responsible for mass shootings and should be restricted or banned, but that support is waning. More important is that this truly misses the point, and basing policies on missed points is a prescription for failure.

And now there is more compelling evidence that banning or restricting guns or magazines won't work, and even will make things worse, and it comes from a group that has instant credibility on this issue: police officers.

In March, PoliceOne, which serves police officers across the nation and has more than 450,000 registered members, "conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation's attention in recent weeks: gun control," so states the introduction to PoliceOne's report.

"More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals [70 percent of whom are field-level law enforcers who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis] took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility," the introduction noted, in discussing the nearly-thirty question survey.

Here are some of the takeaway points from that survey:

** Ninety-five percent said that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

** Seventy-one percent said that a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. And, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime.

** Roughly 85 percent said passing the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have zero or a negative effect on their safety.

** They cited things they felt would help prevent mass shootings: more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians, 28 percent; more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons, 19 percent;

more armed guards/paid security personnel, 15 percent.

** Nearly 90 percent believe casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

** More than 80 percent support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one on the job.

** More than half of respondents feel increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could reduce gun violence.

** The officers were about evenly split on whether citizens should be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun.

** They believe that cultural/societal influences promote gun violence: violent movies and video games, 14 percent; early release and short sentencing for violent offenders, 14 percent; poor identification/treatment of mentally-ill individuals, 10 percent. However, 38 percent cited a decline in parenting and family values.

The majority plainly does not support the ideas being pushed by gun-control advocates favoring restrictions on weapons and magazines, and many feel those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent crime. They also support enforcing existing laws before passing new ones.

The mainstream media openly supports restrictions on personal liberty, at least where guns are concerned, and suppresses news of gun owners stopping crimes. Many of our elected public servants, who prefer an unarmed and therefore compliant populace, also support gun control.

But the majority of police surveyed overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

Police officers patrolling America’s streets have a legitimate interest in making sure that we make decisions about guns that support their work and do not make things worse. With this survey, their voice has been heard, and they disagree with the current mania.

Perhaps it would be smart to listen to them.

U.S. is losing economic freedom and the prospect of women in combat

By James Shott

Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Mauritius, and Denmark all beat the United States in the 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. The U.S., part of a group of countries termed "mostly free," scored 76.0 out of 100, dropping .3 from last year, compared with 89.3 for Hong Kong. The world average score of 59.6 is only .1 above the 2012 average. All free economies averaged 84.5, well above the U.S. ranking.

The Index is produced by The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation, and is based on Adam Smith's theory expressed in The Wealth of Nations in 1776. It covers 10 freedoms scored from 1 to 100, from property rights to entrepreneurship, for 185 countries, and has been published since 1995.

Economic freedom is defined as "the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself." That definition applies less to the U.S. each year.

The U.S. has lost economic freedom for five consecutive years and suffered losses in the categories of monetary freedom, business freedom, labor freedom, and fiscal freedom. The U.S. did post an increase in one category, however: government spending, in which it scored lowest of the ten categories.

The poor U.S. position, the lowest Index score since 2000, is due to rapid expansion of federal policies, which have encroached on the states' ability to control their own economic decisions. The authors specifically mentioned the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial bill as having strong negative influences on economic freedom. They also noted that national spending rose to over 25 percent of GDP in 2010, that public debt passed 100 percent of GDP in 2011, and that budget deficits have exceeded $1 trillion each year since 2009.

"More than three years after the end of the recession in June 2009, the U.S. continues to suffer from policy choices that have led to the slowest recovery in 70 years," the authors wrote. "Businesses remain in a holding pattern, and unemployment is close to 8 percent."

Until government stops trying to regulate nearly every facet of life, its tinkering will continue to slow the economy and prolong suffering, and we will continue to fall in the Index of Economic Freedom.

* * * * * * *

The decision to put women in up-front combat roles is troubling, to say the least, perhaps more so to those of us who grew up and served in times when women played important roles in the military, but were not directly involved in combat, or even close to combat.

Fortunately, only a relative few females have been injured and killed in recent military actions, but if this decision stands those numbers will grow, and that prospect is a quite traumatic one for many Americans, and completely unacceptable for many others.

The critical factor in determining whether any group or individual serves in a combat situation is whether they are up to the daunting challenges that exist. Requirements for who fills combat roles must be maintained at levels that guarantee that every person in a combat role is up to it, man, woman, gay, straight or whatever.

There are also practical considerations when males and females are in combat situations in close proximity. Troops are often in sustained operations for extended periods, and living conditions offer no privacy for personal hygiene functions or sleeping. Finding ways to provide needed privacy during high stress and dangerous operations may very well put troops at greater risk. That is not acceptable.

A convincing argument against this is that the decision was made for the wrong reasons: it was driven by political and social considerations, not military need, according to Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, US Army (Ret.), who served for 36 years as an original member of the Delta Force and a Green Berets commander.

Some women believe that their chances of career advancement within the military suffer from being excluded from ground combat positions. And predictably, the American Civil Liberties Union, which frequently takes positions that make no sense in the practical world, agrees and has filed a lawsuit on their behalf.

The safety of our military personnel must not be put at risk in return for achieving some politically correct sense of fairness or even to allow female military personnel access to the career advantages that are available to males, as unfair as that may be. Fairness and equality sometimes must take a back seat.

Despite the strong desires of many Americans, men and women are by nature different biological creatures and distinctly not equal in important ways, one of which is that men are better suited to military combat than women. We shouldn’t fool with Mother Nature.

Cross-posted from Observations

Smart economic policies push states to top of business-friendly list

 

Commentary by James H. Shott

“Regulation and litigation are the bane of business,” according to CNBC in its 2012 America’s Top State for Business survey. “Sure, some of each is inevitable. But we graded the states on the perceived ‘friendliness’ of their legal and regulatory frameworks to business.”

While some states, counties and municipalities are friendly to businesses, others employ policies that drive them away. Among states, Texas and California epitomize these two extremes. With its free-market economic reforms of the last several years Texas has created more than 410,000 jobs since the recession began in 2007, while California has lost nearly 900,000 over that same period. Once again, Texas tops the CNBC list, the third time in five years, besting last year’s winner, Virginia, which dropped to third place.

If a state wants to create jobs, what should its governor and legislature do? Well, they could seek the wisdom of a professor of sociology, a police officer, or a pathologist, an NBA star, or a Nobel Laureate in physics, all knowledgeable people in their field. But to find out how to encourage job creation, you might get the most useful information from employers about what they look for in choosing a suitable environment in which to operate, and then make the state’s environment as close to what they told you as possible.

This common sense prescription desperately needs to be applied at the federal level, where anti-business policies that have kept the United States in recession-like conditions for the last 41 months thrive. Perhaps someone in a position of power in Washington will take notice of how states work to attract or repel business and it will serve as a wake-up call, although recent history argues strongly against that happening.

In answer to the question of how to create jobs, one CEO told Chief Executive Magazine the following: “Do not overtax business. Make sure your tax scheme does not drive business to another state,” he said. “Have a regulatory environment and regulators that encourage good business—not one that punishes businesses for minor infractions. Good employment laws help too. Let companies decide what benefits and terms will attract and keep the quality of employee they need. Rules that make it hard, if not impossible, to separate from a non-productive employee make companies fearful to hire or locate in a state.”

Businesses also seek an environment with consistent policies and regulations that allow them to plan for a significant period into the future, as well as an overall positive attitude toward business and a productive work ethic among its population.

None of that seems particularly radical, and in fact seems very logical. It just makes sense to keep taxes and regulations from impeding job creation, and during times of high unemployment to at least relax those that get in the way. Destructive federal policies have been in effect and stifling job creation throughout President Barack Obama’s term. In February 2009 the unemployment rate shot through the 8.0 percent barrier that the president assured us would never be breached, and it remains above that mark today.

The top five business friendly states in the CNBC survey are: Texas, Utah, Virginia, North Carolina, and North Dakota, while the bottom five are: Mississippi, Alaska, West Virginia, Hawaii, and finishing last, Rhode Island.

Most of the highest ranking states share features like lower tax burdens, governments more amenable to allowing economic growth, little or no union labor, and, as it turns out, state governments dominated by Republicans.

Of the top 10 states in the survey, seven have both Republican governors and legislatures, and of the bottom 10 states, six have Democrat governors and legislatures. Of the top ten states, only two have Democrat governors and in the top 20 there are only five Democrat governors.

It is also worth noting that Republican leaders in the high ranking states support economic policies that mirror the national Republican platform.

Obviously, facts illustrating which political party has policies that generally foster a better job creating environment will not please Democrats, but it is what it is. Of course, policies that promote a positive business environment are not necessarily restricted to Republicans, and Colorado’s business-friendly Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper proves the point: His state sits eighth among CNBC’s top states. It just happens that Republicans generally promote policies that encourage job creation, economic growth, and wealth creation, whereas Democrats, who adhere to liberal, or so-called “progressive,” values generally promote policies that obstruct these things.

It is not difficult to find the answer to the question, “in times of high unemployment and economic stress, which political party will be most likely to create an atmosphere that will allow the private sector to correct these problems?”

And once that answer is found, everyone who cares about creating jobs and improving the economy must vote for candidates that support policies like those adopted by the states at the top of the CNBC survey that will make it possible to improve the economy and create jobs, and finally turn Mr. Obama’s stagnated economy into a recovering economy.

Cross-posted from Observations

More federal government control has made things much better, right?

 

Commentary by James H. Shott

Most Americans probably have at best a foggy concept of the degree to which the federal government intrudes into their lives, and just how many people are paid to conduct that intrusion from dozens, perhaps hundreds, of departments, agencies, bureaus, divisions, boards and other bodies.

In March of this year the U.S. Census Bureau reported that as of March 2010, the last year for which complete data exist, there were 3,007,938 total federal employees, 2,583,768 of them working full-time, with a payroll that month of $16.2 billion.

Depending upon whom you believe, federal employees either make lots more than their private sector counterparts (according to Republicans and other small government advocates) or lots less than private sector employees (according to Democrats and federal employee union leaders). Looking at total wages and benefits, the Republicans and small government advocates are closer to right, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

A CBO report in January of this year concluded that federal employees with no more than a high school education and those with a bachelor’s degree averaged higher total compensation than their private sector counterparts by 36 percent and 15 percent, respectively. But where benefits are concerned, the lower the education level of the federal employee, the greater the disparity in paid benefits. “Average benefits for federal workers with no more than a high school diploma were 72 percent higher than for their private-sector counterparts,” while those “whose education ended in a bachelor's degree were 46 percent higher” than for similar workers in the private sector, whereas workers with “a professional degree or doctorate received roughly the same level of average benefits in both sectors.”

We euphemistically refer to federal government employees as “public servants,” but increasingly it seems that it is we who serve them. And just what is it that they are up to?

Many of them are madly creating rules and regulations with the force of law and enforcing them. Most of them were not created by Congress, the only government branch empowered to create laws, and Congress is not even specifically aware of many or most of them, except when someone writes a letter of complaint. Furthermore, all of this regulating and penalizing often occurs without oversight by anyone besides other bureaucrats.

“A man’s home is his castle” is a phrase that once represented America’s personal freedom, meaning that people enjoyed the position of rulers in their homes, and others had no right to enter without the householder's permission. That is no longer true; now, Washington is in charge.

This situation has become so perverse that attorney and author Mark Levin describes it thus: “America has become a society in which the people are wise enough to select their own leaders, but too incompetent to choose the right lightbulb.” In his brilliant book “Ameritopia: the Unmaking of America” he cites as one example of the degree to which the feds have become entangled in our day-to-day lives the government’s involvement in the food industry where “the federal budget for regulating nearly all aspects of food, from production to consumption, exceeds the entire country’s net farm income.”

And that is just for our food.

Here’s a test: Before reading further, make a list of the things in your most personal space – your home – that government at some level doesn’t regulate. It will not be an impressive or long list.

Now that you have completed the test, here are some of the things in your home about which you have little to say, courtesy of Mr. Levin: washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, dishwashing detergents, microwave ovens, toilets, showerheads, heating and cooling systems, refrigerators, freezers, furnace fans and boilers, ceiling fans, dehumidifiers, lightbulbs, certain renovations, fitness equipment, clothing, baby cribs, pacifiers, rattles and toys, marbles, latex balloons, matchbooks, bunk beds, mattresses, mattress pads, televisions, radios, cell phones, iPods, and other digital media devices, computer components, video recording devices, speakers, batteries, battery chargers, power supplies, stereo equipment, garage door openers, lawn mowers, lawn darts, pool slides, toothpaste, deodorant, dentures and virtually everything one could put in a medicine cabinet.

Things are not improving under President Barack Obama. Dr. Robert Moffit, writing for The Heritage Foundation, reports that “[s]ince President Obama took office in 2009, federal agencies have issued 75 major regulations with an annual additional cost to the economy of $38 billion. Taken altogether, the Small Business Administration last year estimated that the total cost of America’s regulatory burden reached $1.75 trillion—more than twice what Americans pay in individual income taxes,” and more than the annual budget deficits each year since 2009. And that is just from the federal government; state and local bodies also contribute.

And if it isn’t bad enough that these multitudinous rules and regulations stifle productivity and make things cost a lot more, some of them are manifestly stupid. In order to close down a business, Milwaukee, Wisconsin requires purchasing an expensive license, submitting a pile of paperwork on the inventory to be sold, and a fee based on the length of the "going out of business sale."

What has happened to the “Land of the Free” and the self-reliant spirit that made this country great?

Cross-posted from Observations

Abolition of the Ninth Circuit Court?

Abolition of the Ninth Circuit Court?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Excerpt from the US Constitution:

Article III

Section 1: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”

In the event you were not aware – “the Constitution grants Congress power to create and abolish federal courts, although the United States Supreme Court is the only court that cannot be abolished. Congress also has the authority to determine the number of judges in the federal judiciary system.” (SOURCE)

Earlier this year, Newt Gingrich called for the complete abolition of the Ninth Circuit Court. Gingrich was speaking to the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference at the time. Referring to an action by President Thomas Jefferson, Gingrich said the “judicial reform act of 1802 abolished 18 out of 35 federal judges, over half…I am more cautious than Jefferson. I would only abolish the Ninth Circuit Court.” (SOURCE)

You may disagree with Mr. Gingrich but, frankly, he may be onto something here.
The Ninth Circuit Court is the biggest of all the federal courts. It is based in San Francisco and it is heavily liberal. This particular court is a pain in the posterior to all things conservative.

Back in November of 2009, Gingrich is reported to have said: “It is constitutionally permissible, for the legislature and the president to say to a court, you are intolerable, and you no longer exist. And we need that debate because I am tired of secular fanatics trying to redesign America in their image.” (SOURCE)

I could not agree more!

Just this week (Tuesday, October 27th, 2010) the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that Arizona couldn’t require proof of citizenship in the United States when registering to vote.

“A three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday struck down a portion of an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. The court held that the law, Proposition 200, was inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), which was passed with the intent of increasing voter registration and removing barriers to registration imposed by the states. The NVRA requires voters to attest to the validity of the information on their registration form, including their citizenship, but does not require them to provide additional proof of citizenship. Proposition 200 went beyond the federal statute, requiring applicants to show proof of citizenship before registering to vote.” (SOURCE)

Now, maybe I’m a little slow on the uptake here, but doesn’t that effectively mean that non-citizens will be allowed to register to vote, oh, say, in the 2012 Presidential Election – not just in Arizona -- but also in all fifty states?

I realize that I am “Old Fashioned” but I was taught, and I still believe, that voting is a privilege granted to citizens of this country. In my opinion, a non-citizen should never be allowed to vote, in any country’s elections, under any circumstances.

On the other hand, if you happen to be the Democratic Party and you need all the votes you can get to gain and/or hold onto to power in a “Socialist Republic of America,” then you do everything within your power to allow all the illegal aliens you can squeeze across our southern border into the US and then grant them the privilege to vote in order to keep you in power. See? Makes all the sense in the world!

And the dems wonder why we are mad as hell? Like it, or not, THIS is the way this latest action by the federal court is being viewed and understood by Americans.

I visited my barbershop the morning of this writing, for a haircut, and even before I arrived the conversation had begun. The disgust and anger at the Democratic Party, the disgust and anger at the Obama Regime was flowing like a river of acid! Men and women were openly venting their anger at the loss of their freedom, the loss of their country and they did not mince words.

Everyone agreed that the United States of America is now a socialist country heading, as straight as a Martin to a gourd, towards communism. There was no discussion, pro and con. It was a declarative statement. There is RAGE out here -- and it is no longer simmering.

Everyone agreed, men and women alike, there will be open rioting in the streets of the US before the next election in 2012.

In my naiveté, I had thought this election, on Tuesday, would let some steam off and the anger level in America would subside, at least a bit. But, now, I am not so sure. This white-hot anger runs deep, at least here in the southern states. I am convinced you will see that on Tuesday evening.

By the way, it is rarely noted, but Arizona is a southern state. She stood with the Confederacy during the “late unpleasantness” of 1861 through 1865. Recently, the remainder of her former Confederate sisters see her as being “put upon” by the federal government and, frankly, we do not like it – at all.

Actions, such as the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court referenced above, which will allow people who aren’t even supposed to be in the country, and, indeed, are already criminals, to vote, is viewed as nothing more than the heavy hand of an oppressive socialist government intent upon establishing a totalitarian regime and crush any resistance to their efforts.

Southerners have been in the vanguard of every rebellion against totalitarianism and oppressive government on the shores of this country -- even before it’s founding.

Southerners are kind, gentle, soft-spoken, hospitable, God-fearing people – right up til you get us mad.

As a Southerner, myself, I can attest that we are not mad, we aren’t even angry. We are LIVID!

Thanks to the Ninth Circuit Court even more southerners will be going to the polls to vote against the Obama Regime and the Democratic Party on Tuesday. We can do no less for our sister state of Arizona nor for our sister states above the Mason-Dixon line.

May God save America – and do so quickly!

J. D. Longstreet