Popular Support For Anti-Gun Enforcement

Lately, I've been writing here on this site to try to end violence by guns and heavy weapons in America. Globally, most citizens would find a goal like that a no-brainer and pretty mild and unambitious.

Not here in America. In response, my facebook page, my Huffington Post feed, and my Linked In site were compromised by an outside hacker, and I've had to change my passwords.

So, let me say, such a mild goal has its own peculiar set of consequences here in America, where free speech is supposedly a human right. A legal right....

From NBC-TV, New York State has bravely proposed restricting guns, and I applauded when I heard it. In fact, my readers know I want guns banned. Requiring temporary permits to own firearms, like hunting permits, would help cut down gun ownership.

And here's an incredible statistic taken from a gun study (before such studies were stopped twenty years ago in America by pro-firearms groups).... David Frum, on CNN, repeated what I'd heard on the radio taken from a study that was actually released:

 A gun kept in the house is 43 TIMES more likely to kill a member (of the household) than to be used in self-defense. 

That's right. If your parents have a gun, remember they're 43 times more likely to kill each other and you than an intruder into your house.

Think of it that way, and think of the little children who died in Connecticut, for all the people who die every day from gun violence. And don't wait. Please, for me, ask gun owners to dispose of their gun or guns.

Instead, think about pursuing milder hobbies. Much better hobbies are out there to have than hunting, even if those old guns were inherited. Buy a camera and go hiking, go canoeing and swimming. But don't try the guns out near you....

NOT if you want to LIVE.

Offer An Olive Branch of Peace

Hearing Piers Morgan fight against pro-gun extremists makes me think about my own views. Turns out, I agree with him and would strengthen anti-gun laws much further.

We don't hear enough about the anti-weapon side--totally banning firearms in favor of peace, preservation, and longevity.

This blog is on the side that doesn't believe the Founding Fathers believed that guns belong in homes. That's not the message they wanted to leave behind on the Second Amendment and some legal Constitution scholars agree with me.

(And yes, my pedigree goes back to Connecticut and Massachusetts, and I'm even an American Patriot, so this is my opinion.)

I'm agitating in my own small way on this blog in the direction of personal peace, kindness, and goodness---not in the direction of evil in the form of aggressive personal offense, fact-twisting, and revenge. The latter are attitudes faking as rationales for military-level household defense within America. In this war on weapons, they're counter-productive and anger-inducing. America must have descended into tragic violence if everyone should have military-level assault rifles, making it anything but a Free Country.

Just nuts in the words of President Clinton.

“No one is challenging NRA members' right to own guns,” Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat said." Huffington Post

Excuse me, Rep. McCarthy, but I most humbly am making exactly that point consistently in posts on this site.

 I've been pushed in the direction of banning guns entirely, because I know in my heart that countries without widespread ownership of guns have: 

1. fewer deaths and injuries from weapons,
2. greater human longevity, 
3. higher overall levels of education, 
4. better and more inclusive healthcare for everyone, and 
5. more safety and security in homes and businesses. 

Any assertions to the contrary are outright, jealous lies unsupported by facts and physical experience.

Unlike me, they, or someone taking care of them, have been PAID by the gun industry somewhere in their pasts to be quiet and muzzle the truth.

What can gun owners do? 

Easy. Be strong. Don't have or own guns. If you have one, you know what to do to dispose of it. Get rid of your weapons, all of them. How many ways are there to say it? 

Throw them away. Tip your guns and weapons. Tip all of them. I, for one, wish you would. I believe one gun is too many in a house. Shouldn't be there, doesn't belong.

Turn the other cheek. Offer an olive branch of peace. Find layers of subtle complexity in the world. Dream of peace. Make me proud. If you don't agree, please don't comment and ruin my sleep...Find your own platform. I'll delete it anyway. And thank you for reading this far.

Census: Fascinating Night View of America and Southern Canada

Pop. U.S.: 308 Million 

Pop. Canada: 34.5 Million

Courtesy: B. Martin-Anderson

Each dot represents a person. Population is noticeable to the east of a line to the north and south of Houston, Texas. Lower population in the western states is evident, with the exception of the far west coast and a few urban centers.

The Fallacy of American Gun Ownership Rights

Today, the day after Christmas, I was heartened to see guns being turned in at a voluntary program in Los Angeles. It's certainly a step in the right direction. As is the public gun registry this article describes. It's a new age, and the internet has opened lots of homes to public view in real estate sites and ads. Gun owners don't need more protection than homeowners selling their homes or people taking exercise walks outside.

Speaking to other American women at my exercise class this morning, I heard differing points of view about the problem with guns today in America: one woman thought we should each be forced to take care of a German Shepherd dog, one for each household, and not have guns at all. Another, a lawyer, claimed that people in poor communities should be allowed to arm themselves, hunters have the right to have guns--it's a right to own guns under the Second Amendment--but doesn't think assault rifles are necessary. 

Based on having lived in peaceful countries before I moved to America, my views that guns should not be in homes, and that most people don't have any need to own guns--whose only purpose is to intimidate, injure, and kill--is considered by most Americans rash, unwise, crazy and frankly stupid. 

Piers Morgan Under Fire 

I feel sorry for Piers Morgan having around 93,000 75,000 signatures on a deportation petition, growing and subject to updating, a petition that requires only 25,000 to get an official White House response. All those stone cold, unattractive, deeply inhospitable signers had to log in to sign. I would say, judging from first names alone on the petition, for every female name there are twelve to twenty male names. 

Meanwhile, the ladies at my exercise class claim that Piers Morgan shouldn't have put out his own views. That was his so-called mistake, not his actual views, that he should have instead had a guest to argue with the pro-gun lobbyists and left it to a guest to fight with the other side the way he did....But that stance, of blaming a television journalist--the messenger of truth to power and a mouthpiece of the officially unrepresented opposition--defies logic and common sense. Journalists choose the news to tell, so their personal views inevitably gain more visibility. (This is the unstated rationale behind the Republican voice of Fox News). The extent of the vitriol and anger resulting from his frank expression of logic is chilling to me.

Americans can sound wild, crazy, heartless, inhospitable, non-supportive of one another, and not at all free to me when they talk about wanting and liking their guns, and throwing out of the country those who disagree. The fact that a commenter on a website said that the CNN announcer's fate should be similar to the Nazis deported from America in the Second World War is scary. 

It shows that it was possible at some point in the past to throw out someone because of their beliefs (just as beliefs were considered when they entered America--a point I find disturbingly unconstitutional if it comes to that, and it obviously does). Even beliefs sanctioned by international organizations of world peace about gun rights are considered irrelevant and not worth following to Americans. 

Americans threw out Nazis, and so they're attempting to throw out anti-gun supporters. Haven't they noticed that the guns Americans use to kill each other could kill them? That they would seem to every other country as deeply unattractive and inhospitable? Why would anyone bother being a tourist to the country?

The Second Amendment Again

Let's get serious. Gun ownership is not a right in any part of the Second Amendment. As my previous post shows, legal scholars such as Saul Cornell et al. have discovered this as a fact despite dogma to the contrary espoused by pro-gun advocates, even pro-gun lawyers and legal educators. That  gun ownership is thought to be a Second Amendment right is a phony but popular assertion promoted by the gun lobby to sell and own guns designed to intimidate, injure and kill "the enemy among us." And Americans obviously have many enemies within the country. The internal death, intimidation, and injury-by-gun rate is the highest in the world by a ratio of many thousands to one among the civilized countries.

If only most Americans were more civilized, educated, more refined, more experienced of life lived outside of America in a kinder, gentler world, they might not be delusional and just plain wrong about the Second Amendment. They don't have the knowledge, experience, or the right to tell others in the world how to live, and my gentle readers outside of America shouldn't listen to the insular, provincial brand of American bluster, given the uniquely high American murder rate.

Defending oneself by following the path of gun ownership has not worked, as many commenters have written, those who've experienced firsthand violent threats of gun violence.  The fact that self-defense with a gun has worked in a few cases doesn't mean that it has worked in the majority of cases. I find the assertion simply undocumented, inimical to peace, anti-civilization, and anti-humanity.

World and countrywide peace has always consisted of dropping guns, ammunition, and intimidation, and making a conscious effort in that direction. Isn't that obvious?

NRA Has Blood on Its Hands

Now it appears that pro-weapon adherents the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), and other pro-gun lobby groups, are finally coming out into the media with eyes blazing hot with aggression after turning down earlier requests to appear following the shooting of twenty-eight people in a small primary school in Connecticut.

The NRA alone is bankrolled by an over three-hundred million dollar budget PER YEAR. And in the last week they've been getting their message act together. The supposedly fancy idea that the NRA is trying to blast through our consciousness is supposed to be, drum roll please: Every elementary school should payroll a security guard paid for by OUR taxes!!! If this isn't the most stupid, reckless idea that some kind of highly-paid consultancy outfit could come up with, I don't know what is...Don't these shooters and pro-shooters know that education takes place in many areas of life, and classrooms exist all over the country?

All of these riflers and gun-toters and association members and those who enable them need to become more educated and informed of the truth that most of us already know factually and experientially, and realize that the way to go is not "a gun for a gun"...any more than buying an anti-car to destroy a car, or an anti-computer to destroy a computer, would stop sales of cars or computers. So the associations are clearly working to sell more guns and help the weapon industry survive. There can't be any other explanation. They need to help the gun industry, they argue, because guns last for generations and get handed down. They think we won't have any rights left if we don't allow weaponry for private defense.

But what is there left to defend that is valuable and intrinsically unique to America? A house that costs the same after almost twenty years, like mine was, even though I "invested" twice the price of the house in repairs?...Or the financial system, where the American economy is owned by Asia?...Or how about health insurance, where private insurance won't cover many episodes and tests?...Or job security, where there isn't any? Or, take security, where we're told by these gun clubs that the proliferation and easy availability of guns will lead to lifestyles of greater security? Who cares about those who are small-minded enough to actually believe guns defend America? If guns defend America, and not philosophy and lifestyle, I pity and feel sorry for the future military state of the country. General Petraeus, before he was shown to make a human error, almost ran for office and would have appointed military men like him, and the Republicans almost hijacked the voting process to disallow those less likely to vote against them.

And good riddance if weapons and weapon-makers disappear...The military will survive quite well and is one of the rare wings of the American government with reliable financial support.

Political figures are assassinated by weapons of various kinds, and sometimes they're killed despite the best practices in security technologies. Where there's a will, there's a way, and where someone has the desire to kill, that desire is going to have more chance of being successful depending on the attendant availability and accuracy of the weaponry.

An easy way to cut back on violence is not to use guns. If guns aren't anywhere around, they can't be used. Make sense? Don't tell me it doesn't. It's obviously, absolyoutely true.

I am not in any way bankrolled by anyone to make these peace-loving remarks, and the gun lobby is a thousand times more bankrolled than their opposition--simply peace-loving individuals like me. I haven't any proof whatsoever that the associations have any interest whatsoever in promoting peace as a conscious objective. In their policy and mission statements, they seem to have more interest in provoking anger and violence and gun sales, than in having an open, carefree, peace-loving society with open classrooms and fields. And shame on them. HUGE SHAME. Blood is on their hands. 

Those who tend to be pro-guns also tend to use blasphemy and carry guns, and they offend me personally...I don't like them as individuals, and feel immensely sorry for them on a personal level. They are uneducated in, unhelpful to, and ignorant of, a peaceful existence. I feel sorrow for their pathetically misguided pro-gun stance, and anger at their deluded aggression and power by brute force. They simply can't be branded as individuals worthy of my trust.

And I will keep writing for the peace that I want and say what I wish to say voluntarily.... And saying nonsensical arguments pro-gun isn't going to help society become more peaceful, so there's no point in wasting energy saying them in comments or trying to change my mind. Thanks for reading my harmless, free outburst of aggression in favor of stricter gun control. 

Turn in your weapons, please, or dispose of them, along with saddening, sickening pictures of  aggressive killings. Weapons, hunting, and shooting aren't noble. And personally, I don't think gun ownership is at all NICE. Guns don't belong in nice houses.

More Needless Gun Violence

Gun violence again shattered the somnolent peace of the countryside, this time in an elementary school in Connecticut. Almost thirty people have perished today needlessly at the hands of a gunman with an assault weapon.

Yes, guns are allowed. It's a free and open-spirited country. And yes, one person was crazy enough to do it. But just because guns are available doesn't mean they should be allowed and given as a gift from a parent to a child. Yet this is what happened today.

Lisa Belkin, formerly of The New York Times, says in The Huffington Post that it's a parenting issue, but it's bigger than that, much bigger. It's everyone's issue because it's a societal issue. Innocent lives were lost---maybe the next generation's Einstein or Hillary Clinton died. 

America has far more violence than other countries. People around the world heard about it. Anyone with the delusion that America has gun violence in the same exact proportion as other countries doesn't have the facts at hand. Crazies in America have much easier access to guns.

A Few Facts For Unbelievers

For every person who dies in America from a gunshot wound this year, two others are wounded. The lives of many others are changed by these deaths and injuries. Gun violence touches every segment of society because of the flagrant availability of guns.

The Vietnam War in twenty years killed 58,000 American soldiers, and yet that same number is less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the United States in an average two year period.

In the first seven years of the US-Iraq War over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Yet the same number of civilians are killed by gun violence in America every seven weeks.

Gun violence accounts for deaths by homicide (murders), assaults with deadly weapons, suicide, and unintentional deaths and injuries. In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries killed 606 people in the United States, and guns killed over 14,000 people in 2011. Suicides using guns among teenagers and the elderly are higher in the United States than anywhere else in the world.

Of unintentional shootings, eight percent were done by children under the age of six, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

America Leads the World in Gun Violence

Indisputable evidence indicates repeatedly that the United States has the highest rate of gun-related injuries in the world.

Contrary to popular belief, studies have found that safe-storage laws do not affect gun violence rates (W) of suicides and juvenile accidental deaths.

The cost of gun violence is estimated at USD$100 billion annually for emergency medical care and associated psychological trauma.

Time to Be Civilized

Why not have much stricter gun control? The time to take action is now. America has a disastrous gun control policy. It's wrong to make guns as easily available to households as they are now. They don't work efficiently for personal defense, and should be governed by stricter policies.

 It's time to ban assault rifles at the very least, and get rid of handguns. The militia has enough weaponry to keep people safe inside and outside the country. If guns are purchased, after all, they'll likely be used. Otherwise, why go to the expense?

Ethically, there isn't any American justification or excuse to forgive any kind of killer, mass killers, and serial murderers. Our consciences tell us all that today's news was unnecessary. Mental health or illness should not serve as an excuse to explain and forgive murders of innocents.

Mass killers are among the most obvious examples of the mentally ill in society, and they shouldn't have access to guns.  The mentally ill, if delusional about dangers, are surely more likely to purchase guns than the general population rather than less given the opportunity. We're all going to die eventually, so why hasten the inevitable and encourage gun violence by making guns and rifles so readily available?

Make America a safer and more secure place for everyone to live and work. Time to be more civilized and outlaw guns, concealed weapons, handguns, and assault rifles.

This kind of crime is certain to occur again. The killer's dead, and only 25% of Americans favor gun control. Americans won't show they care if stricter legislation isn't passed.

Lose the guns, guys and gals. You will live a longer, gentler, safer, kinder life and feel less anger and profanity. That's my experience, and my promise.

Should the Press Be Given Freedom?

The Old Power of The Traditional Media

Having a discussion with friends on American Thanksgiving last week about freedom of the press, we agreed that newspapers and television news programs in the past had too much power. Journalists gathered together news from various sources and synthesized the various pieces into a coherent whole.The traditional media gave the public measured news stories, one at a time.

 We had to be content with whatever was considered organized at a level worthy of being thrown our way. We had to take what we were given and didn't have any choice, however disorganized and unbelievable the results appeared. The press was powerful enough to be able to shape the news any way it chose and did not have the accountability and public voice of disagreement that we have now, except in those exalted "Letters to the Editor." Amazingly, some people who believe they can influence the public still write those letters. Yet now, even the most exalted traditional journalists are subjected and exposed to the often humiliating language, bad grammar, and ill-will of their online comment sections.

With the chaos of the proliferation of online news aggregators, twitter-sphere and blogs, those aging traditional outlets aren't the single source of news they used to be. And more importantly, and progressively, they haven't the power they once had to make their single point of view the only one available.

If someone makes a statement that is incorrect, thousands of voices can be heard trying to correct and sway public opinion. Twitter and blogs help form new public opinions beyond the influence of the traditional media and current governments.

The Daily Mail Online

Tina Brown mentioned in an interview with Slate that she reads Daily Mail Online.  I have admired and followed her career from years way back in the seventies as editor of Tatler magazine to recently as founder of The Daily Beast. So I have to admit to surprise that she reads it.

The Daily Mail was, maybe still is, considered a tabloid newspaper by many in the United Kingdom but she said it has something for everyone. So bravely I began to read it online, not having been a tabloid reader ever before in my life, I can honestly admit, even when I lived in England. Tabloids are famous for saying what the public wishes to hear however crass. We have to wonder whether they make up salient details in some of their stories. And I expected to be disappointed with the quality and believability of articles. 

Instead, I have to admit the Daily Mail Online is a very content-rich site, and one of my favorite new finds despite my lingering doubts on content, as I do with many sites, by the way. Read it and it will probably swiftly become one your favorite bookmarked sites too.

Today, for example, the venerable American news source The Wall Street Journal mentioned that Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), had not settled any official amount with the maid who accused him of a horrible act in New York City. But the Daily Mail Online, in their article, said the two had settled for an amount in the region of 3 million dollars (And it's not necessarily accurate). 

How to explain the disparity? Now perhaps the Wall Street Journal gave out only one version of their story and did not update it. If the Wall Street Journal doesn't update the story tomorrow or Monday to match that of the Daily Mail Online, what's the truth? And where did the Daily Mail Online get its' number?

It's true that having part of a story can be confusing, but it's not evil on the reader's part to have only one section of a story and want to hear the whole truth. The Wall Street Journal is doing nothing wrong by not updating. At the same time, it's not telling the whole truth. So it's either withholding the truth or else it hasn't verified the truth and doesn't know the whole story. Perhaps the number in the settlement is incorrect, and we don't know whether the number has been verified, if the Daily Mail Online takes the trouble to check facts and verify as strictly as the Wall Street Journal. Many of us doubt it, and yet we take the story in the Daily Mail Online:

1) at face value, as the truth

2) we're the opposite, skeptical. We don't believe it and take it with flakes of salt, or

3) we withhold judgment until the truth comes out

Freedom of the Press

In answer to whether the press needs freedom? Absolutely yes, it must be permitted and encouraged. Having freedom of choice is another basic freedom of human life, if we're good and lucky and we happen to live in a country that supports freedom of choice as a matter of policy and public opinion. And whether the truth is ultimately won or not, the point is that voices of the press should have freedom of expression. 

For me, the shock of hearing the Presidential candidate(s) in the debates of 2012 speak without regard for the truth was a tipping point.  It is said that one powerful candidate actually lied about thirty times in the first forty-minute debate! They made many points sufficiently far off the mark and unverifiable that any journalist would have been completely unable to speak up and stop them at every inconsistency or outright lie. It would have been impossible for anyone to stem the barrage of falsehoods the candidates tossed around so casually and unremorsefully. I, for one, had less rather than more respect when I heard these untruths.

Freedom to intrude, however, by anyone including journalists is not news, not admirable, and difficult for editors to stop. Details in news stories, especially salacious ones, reel in readers. We have to wonder how the Daily Mail Online got its number in the DSK settlement.

The source of the news doesn't really matter to most of us. The truth matters, but not how the truth was discovered. Laws govern us based on the truth, and many courts revolve around details, what they were and how they were found. Details in the news are all part of the chaos of daily life out there.  But the truth does matter, we all prefer that. We need truth to evolve with progressive attitudes and laws. And it takes all sorts of freedom to discover the truth: freedom of choice; freedom of expression; and freedom to ask questions and do whatever is necessary to find the answers.

Life is messy and reading these news aggregator sites, our modern online newspapers, can make it even more so.

Take an Enjoyable Word-Test Quiz

Here's another wonderful site to add to your personal favorite list of websites.

Whether you are experienced in English and it is your first language or English may be the first and the last language you will learn. In any case, this site will help keep you on your toes.

It's published by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and is a word-tester. Each quiz has ten questions and each question needs to be answered within ten seconds to win points. Each question has four multiple choice answers of one word each to define a quiz word. Questions are worth different amounts of points, but it's a painless and fun way to improve your vocabulary. Even if you think you have English vocabulary nailed, it's fun and worthwhile. As a result, you can compare your personal proficiency to your age group, in case you're feeling competitive in the least. And there are other word-tests on the same site to try. Good luck, and enjoy!

It's here at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary site:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/quiz/index.htm

Weight Loss and Other Inexact Sciences

Another hurricane is on the way to us here in the Atlantic northeast. Sandy is meeting a western front, and creating a nor'easter to rival the Perfect Storm of 1991. A major movie was made from that one, so we're dreading what's in store for us. Forecasters and radars (which one ignores at one's peril) predicted Sandy will be here early next week, the last few days of October. Might not be as bad as all that, I hope not. Might not happen at all. But Holy Flying Dinosaurs, the television media has already begun scaring the living daylights out of us...

And yet how often are weather events correctly forecast? Weather Science is an inexact science.

Earth Science is not an exact science either, but Italy is going to imprison seven Earth Scientists to six years in prison for incorrectly issuing false reassurance that a major 6.3-magnitude earthquake that ultimately happened on the 6 April 2009 and killed 308 people would not follow weaker tremors. An open letter to the Italian president from 5000 international scientists asserts the charges are unfounded. A case of injustice if I've ever heard one.

If this post is going to be about inexact sciences, there are thousands of examples. But what are the exact sciences?

(W) Exact Sciences:

An exact science is any field of science capable of accurate quantitative expression or precise predictions and rigorous methods of testing hypotheses, especially reproducible experiments involving quantifiable predictions and measurements. Physics and Chemistry can be considered as exact sciences in this sense.

The term implies a dichotomy between these fields and others, such as the humanities.

Weight loss is definitely another inexact science in general. There's a wonderful BBC documentary by Dr. Michael Mosley I've watched twice this week about the 5:2 diet. This article describes the diet that might actually work, and inspires this writer. For two days a week, women eat 400-500 calories, and men eat 500-600. The other five days a week are unregulated. Any amount of calories is fine, up to about 2200. In this way, the BBC announcer claims he dropped fourteen pounds in six weeks.

I wrote about another diet way back in this post -- the "Sociable Diet." Any way to lose weight that works, like making money, is the best way. Be inspired. And listen to scientists even if the science is inexact.

How Electronics Have Challenged Our Human Values

Sherry Turkle, Head of a Psychology Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) has written three authoritative books about the current intersection of the internet with private life.

In a recent radio interview,* the most disturbing conclusions she described were that:

1) We're losing our sense of how to converse and have uninterrupted conversations even in formal settings such as classrooms.

2) People sleep with their cell phones, of course, while recharging them. And adults are more likely to admit using them at night as alarm clocks.

3) Kids feel shut out from parents whenever they use social media and electronics....Adults often shut each other out, too.

It's not just kids who feel neglect in the presence of electronics. We can't fault inanimate objects, but we can limit their use. Ironically, communication is exactly what they were originally created to improve.

It's true. Yesterday in a small shop, for example, the proprietor gave her cell phone caller a lot more attention than she gave me. I walked out without buying as much as I might have if she'd answered my questions.

4) We feel very lost and panicked in America when we don't have working cell phones with us at all times. And for good reason.

Public phones have completely disappeared off the American landscape. Why aren't there more public phones?

Here's a quick story to illustrate the usefulness of public phones. My daughter's cellphone recently stopped working on the opposite coast and it took a couple of weeks for the phone company to fix it. We experienced an uneasy couple of weeks as she traveled to us until the new one was properly activated, and found life surprisingly difficult without one.

Having digital connections such as a cell phone and access to the internet is somehow connected to the three basic human needs of:

1. money (or credit)
2. transportation and 
3. accommodation 

In the digital age, the values of forgiveness, understanding, compassion, and justice should become highly prized and more priceless than ever before.  But in many ways, electronic interactions are now perceived superior to human contact. Conversation is often, in contrast, considered cumbersome and inferior.

Let's think more about that, and discover how humans can truly trump electronics now and forever. Electronics are so new to humanity that we don't understand all their potential for good and evil. As the digital revolution evolves, we need to share the highest human values. We should encourage the human angle, our most priceless virtues, at work and play.

*Today, Terry Gross of National Public Radio interviewed Professor Turkle, and the interview is here.

Help End Corporal Punishment

The issue of corporal punishment in schools has arisen again. The school year has begun around America, and so have reports of an old-fashioned system of physical punishment sanctioned by the Supreme Court.

An article here specifies which states do and do not allow corporal punishment. By law, localities govern who can administer punishment.



Parents here in New Jersey are not allowed to use spanking as a form of discipline with my children, and haven't been for at least three decades. Spanking was thought to lead to more violence and child abuse and would have brought complaints and been swiftly punished with instant removal of the child by the New Jersey Department of Children and Families, within which is the relevant, formerly scandal-plagued Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS).

I'm surprised to see corporal punishment still exists. According to this firsthand video, a female student in Texas with good grades was not responsible for doing anything wrong (her friend supposedly cheated) and yet this student was punished. A school administrator even wants to expand the policy to allow educators of both sexes to use the paddle. (This administrator obviously expects his local parents to approve. Currently, only administrators of the same sex, by law, can administer physical punishment in that high school.)

Do you agree with all current local policies on corporal punishment or should they be the same nationwide? Is corporal punishment necessary, and the best method to keep kids in line? Do you see it as child abuse? Should parents be allowed to spank?

After all, if parents can't spank their own children (in some states), why can educators just go ahead and punish, and legally get away with it without oversight?

I would rather see the corporal punishment policy entirely deleted from the books, and educators properly educated so they would not resort to corporal punishment at all.

And why is physical punishment more prevalent in the Southern states?

Most important, why hasn't the Supreme Court assumed leadership of the problem? Why doesn't the Supreme Court take a more aware, better-educated, more homogeneous, nationwide approach?

Sorry, only questions and opinions. I'd rather have answers and powerful solutions.

Publishing Photos of the Royal Jewels

Should the forbidden photos of Kate Middleton on vacation in the south of France be attracting such a lot of attention?

I think so, and here's why: they're symbols of democracy.

The Duchess of Cambridge is being supported by the government of England, and is supposed to advance England with the best appearance possible. That is the most public aspect of her job. She's doing an excellent job now in Asia where pictures of her abound in various beautiful dresses, even photos of her royal toes.

Dignified? I don't think so. But ILLEGAL? Sadly for them, I don't think so....The British royal family is angry, and yet what right does it have to be, really?

Indignant they might be. We don't like it when unflattering photos of us appear anywhere. Even if they're bad pictures and they don't put us in the best light, we don't have any right to them. If they were taken on public property, how can the photos be called an invasion of privacy?

Kate has thousands of flattering pictures of her, and yet she's fixated on these photos, now angrily enough to increase international attention and start a lawsuit, it's rumored. And everyone wants to see exactly the photos she wants banned.

The royal family has successfully muzzled the British press, but they have to learn they can't do the same under international law. Yet that's what being a monarchy is all about, having power over one's own sphere, to set precedents. But England is a little country, not completely a democracy even if it likes to think it is, and this photo controversy is indisputable proof of that.

Of course, the royal family wants to put its weight behind banning the photos, as if the pictures and the reality didn't exist, just as they wanted to do with photos of other members of the royal family. But they were too late.

The larger question is why did photos of the royal couple dressed like this get taken at all? The photos came out weeks after they were taken, so were being hoarded secretly until published.

Certainly, the royal couple and family can do what they want. They can consciously model in the nude if they want. What they can't do? They shouldn't turn around and then whine.

If that's how they're going to dress in public and then complain, maybe they need a good education in international justice.

Saudis Are Misguidedly Planning "Cities for Women"

Saudis are taking sex segregation to the extreme. For the supposedly virtuous goal of "educating" women, Saudis have submitted plans to build the first "city for women" with several more planned. And men will not be welcome.

Yet women like to live with men, and men like to live with women. To forcibly separate the sexes is unnatural. Is it bound to fail in the long run or will it help Saudi Arabia be a stronger country?

The problem in Saudi Arabia has arisen that educated Saudi women are leading the country. The powers that be want to keep the women within the country, so are constructing a place for them to live.

Is this really the way to go about it? Of course, westerners don't think so...

While women in the Western World have argued for equality for generations--with mixed success--they have continued to live with men. They need men.

I suppose the idea is that the country as a whole will be stronger if these educated women are kept within the country by choice. Men will only be visitors.

Just saying, I think the idea is unnatural and short sighted. I hope this experiment fails, for I personally wouldn't want it to spread.

American Violence Is In A League Of Its Own

Map of violent crime per 100,000 people in the USA by state in 2004.
"Violent crime" includes Homicide, rape, robbery and serious assault.

lightest pink < 100
darkest pink >800 (W)

In her wonderful article in The New Yorker, Harvard Professor J. Lepore ties together bullet points of the powerful pro-gun political lobby, and presents them in a neat package while lamenting the loss of "civil society." She sprays her article with fascinating statistics which have inspired me to repeat and supplement them to advance my goal of better gun control in America.

The argument against weapons is old, and often ignored. Benjamin Franklin's sister Jane wrote to him in 1787 some advice for "such a number of wise men as you are connected with in the Convention"...to have no more weapons, no more war. "I had Rather hear of the Swords being beat into Plow-shares...if by that means we may be brought to live Peaceably with won a nother (sic)." Not all citizens at that time were in favor of guns and firearms even if they did not have the vote.

Even Texas, that bastion of individual self-righteous freedom, had a governor who explained in 1893 that "the mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man."

America has had eleven Presidential assassination attempts. Four Presidents have died. Yet the modern gun debate may have begun with the shooting of President Kennedy in 1963. On one side, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, founded in 1966, encouraged Americans, especially blacks, in the writings of Huey Newton, to defend and arm "themselves from house to house, block to block, community to community throughout the nation." On the other, the government passed a revised Gun Control Act in 1968 that banned mail-order sales and restricted the purchase of guns by certain high-risk people and military-surplus firearms, intended to fight crime and control riots actually incarcerated many people and was effective.

The argument in favor of firearms and guns for the individual is new and powerful. The article states that the National Rifle Association (NRA) was founded in 1871 by two men, a lawyer and a former reporter from the New York Times (all male)...it is supposed to be about safety education, marksmanship training, and shooting for recreation rather than self-defense.

It was in the 1970s that that NRA pushed for the individual's right to carry guns.

Behind it was the larger anti-regulation, anti-government conservative agenda.But countering gun control advocates, between 1970 and 1989, twenty-seven (27) law-review articles invoked the citizen's right "to keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment, and were published by lawyers employed by the NRA and similar organizations. Even Justice Scalia wrote that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia." I personally call that "notably unhelpful" in the war against "weapons of "individual" destruction". Chief Justice Warren Burger ultimately called the articles fraudulent and rejected them.

Yet the President of the NRA irresponsibly denies knowing what the NRA has wrought with its policies, despite the fact his own son shot someone else in a road rage incident. He also flat-out denied the NRA had anything to do with weakening the faith of Americans in their own government, despite the fact, as this article says, the NRA is more responsible for it than another other organization.

President Reagan was shot in 1981 - not lethally fortunately - and so was his Assistant, White House Press Secretary James Brady. Both survived, and Brady became an active champion of the gun control movement and created the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to help pass common sense gun laws.

The concealed-carry movement, one that encourages more guns, doesn't benefit civilians in everyday life. As The New Yorker article says, "When carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense is understood not as a failure of civil society, to be mourned, but as an act of citizenship, to be vaunted, there is little civilian life left."

It's a serious problem. The article says that one in three Americans knows someone who has been shot. Forty percent (40%) of guns purchased in the U.S. are bought from private sellers at gun shows or online, and are thus unregulated, so do not require completion of firearms-safety training according to this article. A Department of Justice website said in a prison survey in 1997, prisoners admitted eighty percent (80%!) were acquired from an illegal source.

In case I have not adequately provided my readers with enough gun control statistics, here are more. Only those who haven't been victims of crime in America or haven't traveled to compare American safety/violence with other countries would be skeptical of the need for more gun control. Fareed Zakaria even went so far as to call Americans in favor of guns "un-American" and "unintelligent" in Time Magazine here, and now he's the victim of a witch hunt. Please. It's Americans who have a problem with the truth.

The gun-homicide rate in America is thirty (30!) times that of Britain and Australia, 20 times that of India, and 4 times that of Switzerland (which has the second highest rate of gun ownership.)

There are 88.8 firearms per 100 people in the U.S. Yemen, in second place, has 54.8

Switzerland, third, has 45.7. Finland, fourth, has 45.3. All other countries have below 40 firearms per 100 people.

Homicide rates are over-represented among those aged 18-24. Guns are used in more than 50% in suicides and most often by those with prior criminal records. In Virginia, for example, the rate is 22 times higher for males involved with crime. (W).

Fatalities occurred three times as often in America in robberies and family violence incidents where guns were present. Yet robbery and assault rates in general are comparable to Australia and Finland.

A significant number of homicides were unintended and escalated when other crimes happened and weapon(s) present.

While statistics on the distribution of gun ownership are flawed, it has been found that initiatives such as Operation Ceasefire in Boston and Operation Exile in Virginia have lowered youth violence rates, while educational programs to distract and occupy youth have been found most effective. Victims in America are most likely financially disadvantaged, younger than 25, and non-white. Location is one of the most significant factors, as crime varies from locale to locale.

Wanted: Safety From Guns and Firearms

Here's an unpaid word in favor of banning guns and firearms in America.

For some bizarre and unhelpful reason for the millions of victims of gun violence, CNN has an article called "5 things gun owners want you to know" that disturbs me enough to write this piece. These ideas certainly don't result in a more peaceful and safe country, as some statistics here prove.

I'm going to take each supposed reason in favor of the gun culture and unpack why guns and firearms are not good for America and refute each argument one by one.

Now I'm not going to use the actual quotes of Americans from the article. These are not new arguments; they are the reason why firearms are around.

1. If you love your children, you'll teach them to handle a real firearm...

There are so many things that I find distasteful about this idea, as a mother: --

        1) Why is loving your own children so different from loving other people's children? Are your children just clearly better than other people's children, and more deserving of the best, including better education than other people's children? Yuck. Arrogant in posture.

        2) How on earth is the average person qualified to teach another person how to use a firearm? If firearms are supposed to be used safely, then why not stop teaching how to use them yourselves? Teaching how to use firearms should not be a do-it-yourself learn-by-doing project. Better yet, why waste time taking them anywhere to be taught unless you expect them to actually use firearms, even if for legal purposes?

Why not teach them something harmless that will serve them better, and will not contribute to youth violence. I'm thinking of the harm done by the movie theater killer, Oklahoma bomber, the Columbine killers. I suspect all of them had firearms in the homes where they grew up. It's just a wild guess and I might be wrong. In which case, I'm sorry. I doubt I'm wrong, though. Having firearms in the home is always a bad idea. I believe they contribute to multiple acts of violence. This myth is the opposite of what Americans should do.

2. Some Americans prefer to sleep with revolvers next to them. 

Not sure where spouses, children, and other family members and the cleaning lady fit in here. Definitely not welcome in the bedroom at minimum. More likely, they'll be chased out with a gun.

People who get guns legally supposedly have to agree to store them properly in a locked container. Sleeping next to a gun is illegal and a bad idea. I would suggest a teddy bear for comfort. Here's why: an intruder can pick up firearms and use them against you before you've awakened from your deep slumbers. Intruders might very well be stronger than you even if you are awake.

3. Some Americans assert they want to be prepared for trouble, not that they're looking for it. 

There's something about looking for trouble, like happiness, that makes it happen. Studies show that if you want more happiness, you need to consciously think happy thoughts. If you're looking for trouble, you might just find some.

Seriously, if you're going to get your handbag stolen, or worse, your skin is slashed or your body raped, it happens before you realize it, too late to use a weapon anyway. Studies and experience back this idea with mountains of evidence.

4. Some people think they have a standard of living that includes firearms as a matter of right, and as a "way of life".

As my earlier post states, the Framers of the Constitution did not believe that all Americans have the right to bear arms, contrary to popular American belief.

For those who like to use guns to upgrade their standard of living, there are millions and millions of people internationally who would not agree. Absolutely not. Firearms don't raise up the standard of living even one iota to them. In fact, many, many tourists, starting with my own Canadian brothers, choose other countries to visit for vacations rather than America (thus rejecting America), and any study disputing that is likely paid for by a tourism company.

5. Owners of firearms don't take it lightly.

Phew, I'm relieved about that. But to say those who are unfamiliar with firearms are "fearful" and need "respect" and "understanding" of firearms is clearly disrespectful and inaccurate. Yes, I (we) fear roadside and nuclear bombs, but it doesn't mean I'm (we're) going to take them home and keep them.

There's not anything wrong with that visceral fear of danger, by the way. I fear lots of things, including predatory wild animals, tornadoes, and falling off high buildings and cliffs, but it doesn't mean widespread animal killing, driving into tornadoes or jumping from heights is going to inevitably help overcome my fear of them. Many things should always be feared, and rightly so. These situations are inherently dangerous and kill people, just as guns do, incontestably, intrinsically, on purpose, and by nature.

Sorry if you find my views extremist, but to me and lots of people they're basic humanitarian common sense. I'm simply generally in favor of human and animal longevity, and I like to say what I think. Truth to power.

As a final side note, someday I want to tell readers to take the initiative and put a stop to genital mutilation around the world, too (it's always unnecessary), but right now, I'm too timid! I'm working up to it, though.

Please Don't Tax American Prize Winners The Same As Gamblers

I've said before that the Founding Fathers of America didn't include everything in the Constitution, haven't I? Of course, that's just common sense. Has to be.

And one new problem has entered the news sphere again as if it's fresh and shiny. It's not. It's been around a long time, but it's as ripe as a peach in midsummer and worth another look....Senator Rubio has introduced a bill that would help Olympic athletes, and I think it should be extended to academic prize winners as well.

When the American Olympic winners win medals, when academics living in America win rare monetary prizes, and when American gamblers make winnings at casinos, they're all lumped together for tax purposes, stirred around, and taxed the exact same way.

In most other countries, of course, prize winnings from the Olympics and prizes to reward higher education such as the Nobel Prizes aren't taxed the same way as general gambling, lottery, and sweepstakes prizes. It's thought unfair in most countries to tax rare unsolicited prizes winnings. It's an anti-competitive stance. Simple as that.

I can't remember how the Nobel and gambling got mixed together in the tax code as if they were the same. Did the Founding Fathers genuinely want that?

So if the Obama administration wants to help winners, it could do something about it, and pass this legislation. I just wish the legislation could go further, and separate gamblers from academic prize winners and just tax the gamblers, as far as I'm concerned. 

A tremendous new physics prize has just been announced in the past few days. The winners are expected to receive $3 million American dollars flowing from the unexpected generosity of Yuri Milner, an internet billionaire. By doing so, he's promoting the discipline of physics by footing the bill of his prizes to the tune of $27 million per year to nine physicists around the world.

The problem is, winning physicists have to fork over half of that $3 million to the United States government if they live here, while the foreign ones won't be equally punished. Surely these prizewinners are contributing members to society, and one-time prizes should not punish them, and be cut in half as if the money is regular income, the way it is now. I wonder if the Framers of the Constitution would have handled it better.

This odd section of the tax code hit my family when my husband won mathematical prizes, and we learned ourselves the hard way about the tax inefficiency. Should be fixed, no doubt about it. For one, I'm glad the Olympic athletes are complaining about it.

My Self-Publishing Adventure So Far: "Slim Target" is About to be Published

Book publishing has become a bigger deal in my life over the last few weeks. My story is that I achieved an old dream of mine. I finished the first draft of a novel a  few years ago, worked on it for six months, and wondered what to do with it.

I could have sent it to a literary agent, so I went online to read agent blogs. Most agents tended to be very snarky, as if they'd been told (erroneously) to be so to gain readers. Ironically, since writers are exhorted to write with gratitude, these agents were unkind to readers or highlighted cheerful statistics. Worse, maybe that's really what they're like in real life. Most spouted daunting statistics. They usually asked for partials from one out of every three hundred manuscripts they skimmed each week, and accepted for publication only one out of those four partials. Not good odds for me. Lately, in an almost overnight change, some have turned and asked why fiction writers haven't already self-published if their books are any good.

While wondering how to publish my manuscript, whether to self-publish as I continued writing steadily on my blogs, I became a real estate agent thinking I could make more money from that than writing, and the housing market tanked. Fortunately, I've learned tons about real estate, lawyers and all the related areas such as the principles and practices of real estate, laws, construction, insurance, and so on that will help me with generally surviving in America. For that, I'm incredibly grateful.

I was able to continue to write books in my downtime from the real estate, and in time met a book cover designer, Jim Lebbad of Lebbad Design,  who took the lead in advising a development or conceptual editor to me. That editor, Joy Stocke, of Wild River Consulting and Publishing, advised me to delete one third of my manuscript, and referred me to another editor. After doubling the size of my manuscript through character expansions, the second editor, Nina Alvarez of Dream Your Book LLC, cut back half of the remainder, rewrote a lot of it, and even re-titled it "Slim Target"...a title I like.

An article in Smart Money called "Will Publishers Perish" says that literary agents can take the place of publishers (who out-source the printing anyway) and handle all the village it takes to make a book. In my case, I hope not, since a very kind and considerate book designer rather than a snarky agent helped me. Jim took care of the publishing side, or else I would have published it unedited, as many self-publishers are doing. To him, I have to be grateful, of course. Not that any of these professionals work for free, but they did priceless work for a fee.

When I went into the largest national book store this week, I asked for the book Patriots, by David Frum, published by the same Self-publisher I'm using. Of course, his book wasn't in the bookstore, sadly. Guess mine won't be there either. It's hard to read self-publishing enthusiasts like Konrath without being persuaded to self-publish.

To me, the final version now seems a respectable manuscript, and leaves nothing for anyone to sue me about, touch wood. I'm just waiting for the actual book cover now, and then it will be foisted online.

I'm going to self-publish it, after reading about every last self-publisher in the world as well as quite a few printers, and getting to know what's what with the world of publishing. Of course, mine is going to be available online as much as possible, and in paperback at Amazon.

After learning marketing principles, and how to market real estate in America where it's the most organized marketing structure in the world, by the way, I think I have an edge publishing a book. On top of that, I was an English major at university.

It's interesting to see what goes into making a polished book. I am certainly beholden to all of the professionals who did their parts, but not to any literary agent or any one specific person, and that's fine with me. Simpler. I can handle the details of business myself. It should be an adventure to publish it. And I can hardly wait for it online. To feel a copy, see how well it sells, give away some...It's thrilling...One of my oldest dreams is finally coming true.

UPDATE: It's published and available on this blog page by clicking the widget, at Amazon and wherever fine books are sold.

Victims Deserve More Attention Than The Guilty

A seventeen-year-old American girl has tweeted the name of two teenage boys she is accusing of rape. The boys posted photos of the crime on the internet.

The girl and her parents were enraged about the crime and the fact the boys got a very lenient plea deal, and zero genuine follow through punishment.

The girl had the right of all citizens to supposed free speech in America to tell her girlfriends and the general public because these boys were their friends, too.

Yet she might be punished. Why?

This young lady was, by law, supposed to keep quiet in perpetuity, not tell anyone about the crime publicly to protect the reputation of the boys, and by violating a court order of silence risks spending one-hundred-eighty (180) days in jail.

The case is to be decided still, but more than 112,000 people (including me) have signed a website in an online protest at Change.org.

Some laws on the books are bad laws. They just are. They're not just and fair. The reason? Often, some bad ones have been pushed by elected officials to advance business interests (i.e. make more money). It used to be that victims of crimes like this had an added burden; they had to file civil lawsuits to get information out into the public, but social media has turned that on its head and for that I'm grateful.

*Good*  :-)

This law punishing whistle-blowers is a bad law. It should be changed. 

Often those murdered are the only ones who know who murdered them. To be sure, sometimes people are murdered by strangers. Sometimes they're raped by strangers, too, but often women know the identity of their rapists. There is no mystery.

Certainly, the guilty have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. But in this case, there was no doubt about the identities of the guilty. None. The boys were known to the victim.

 This young woman had independent knowledge of the crime. She wanted to alert her girlfriends to the act, and let them know immediately for their own protection. She was doing an act of kindness to her girlfriends by telling them to avoid these boys, who were out and about on the streets, on the internet or on their telephones. 

Yet this young lady by law in a juvenile court might still be the one to have to pay for blowing the whistle to her friends by going to jail in cases such as this. She believed the boys' punishment was too lenient since it was a plea deal and wanted to take revenge in her own hands.

I want to know how punishing the victim more than the criminal makes any legal sense in America today to anyone except the accused boys and their families? Why care about them? The boys did something wrong, hypothetically and probably really did, unless she was lying, a highly unlikely outside possibility.

If the boys assumed they wouldn't be caught and punished, this woman is proving them wrong through her use of social media. I support her, unless she's lying. But I doubt she is, as a young woman has her reputation to lose and nothing to gain by doing this except a good feeling of revenge. The court was remiss in providing true and appropriate justice in a measured, thoughtful, adult manner.

The boys should have been punished in a way that suits the victim and the crime. This girl will always remember and have to live with what they did to her. All the future girlfriends of these boys, and their peers, should be aware of what the boys did and read of the illegal acts they committed. The facts should be available on every internet dating site.

 So why the heck wasn't the court system backing the victim over the accused? It seems the victim often has to pay more expenses than the accused in America, and this decision by the judge was all wrong. To prosecute a victim reporting a crime sends the message that it's wrong to talk about crime in general. The juvenile court judges it's unethical for a victim to talk about a crime that's happened...forever. Isn't that a violation of free speech?

In the same vein, I liked to hear Anderson Cooper bravely asserting on CNN last night that he wouldn't repeat the name of the Colorado movie theater killer, because he said we all know it, and we do. He brought stories of the victims to light to keep the story going, and for that I'm grateful.

America needs to support victims of crimes, too, and not assume support has been given. Otherwise, horrible stories will get supplanted by another fresh news-story-of-the-day, and there will not be sufficient follow-up to help victims, or punish juveniles who believe they will get away with murder and rape. Justice has to be shown to be done, as I've said before.

UPDATE:

Huffington Post reported:

"David Marburger, an Ohio media law specialist, said Dietrich should have tried to get the courts to vacate the gag order rather than simply violate it.

But Gregg Leslie, interim executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Dietrich should "not be legally barred from talking about what happened to her. That's a wide-ranging restraint on speech." "

As for the "media law specialist" perhaps someone else can use the information in the future. I hope so, but
1) it's too late in this case
2) why wasn't she advised of this possibility already?
3) how much would it have cost to get such specialized advice? No one is born knowing this!

I think that in the past, this sort of case was not reported, swept under a rug, and that social media is changing the course of justice for the better. Most rape victims prefer to retain their privacy, and this one individual is being extremely brave to publicize the issue. Let's applaud her for that.

American Politicians Lack Political Will and Courage on Gun Control

An article I just read had wonderful statistics about gun violence.

1) "The average American is forty (40) times more likely to be killed by gunfire than the average Englishman or Canadian." 

2) Another statistic is that "8,500" more people in America "would be alive today" if the murder rate were the same as Canada or England.

3) Even worse, since the year 2000, more than "100,000 Americans might still be alive today" but they were murdered. Just to emphasize, in England and Canada, the equivalent in the population of those 100,000 people are still alive.

It's time for American politicians to remember to focus, not to allow themselves the luxury of distraction if they have earned the luxury of power. Safety and security of the populace should be goals they struggle to work toward.

Many Americans have died, and will continue to do so if nothing is done to end this civil gun war. Everyone is a potential target. Politicians have the power to do something about it collectively, if they are brave and wealthy enough for the task. It's not enough to do nothing. It's now up to politicians to put this genie back in the bottle, and time for the populace to let the nightmare dissolve.

How shameful are these statistics, Americans? If the availability of assault weapons has nothing to do with these statistics, the assumption can be drawn internationally that Americans must be far more murderous by nature, education, and socialization. Honestly, as these statistics prove, individual gun ownership promotes societal anarchy and civil disobedience. Guns should not be necessary in a civilized society. 

The American National Rifle Association (NRA), a harmful organization and website, narrowly contends statistics like these have nothing to do with the proliferation of guns.  It's a dangerous advertising slogan, and completely false.

Americans need to know that the NRA's major slogan, the idea that anyone can bear arms is supported by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, is blatantly untrue and unpatriotic. It was created solely to build a basic police force and military in America, and absolutely did not legally justify and promote widespread individual gun ownership.

The truth, in my research, is that the NRA has historically marketed and repeated an utterly false tenet of the Anti-Federalists, an unpatriotic and disloyal American splinter group of the late 1700s whose purpose was to encourage the individual to bear arms.

This fantasy of the freedom of the individual to bear arms, that has become such a central policy of the NRA, historically originated from a tiny unpopular group in American history ultimately defeated and voted out way back then, a group called the Anti-Federalists, as small and obscure as today's IRA, Basques, or Quebec separatists.

The NRA has changed, extended, and marketed this fantasy of the individual's right to bear arms and promoted it as historical fact in their advertising, but it's an untrue fact. False advertising, NRA!!!

How dare politicians policy shrug off responsibility, allow a weak lapse of governance, and refuse to protect all of us in America? Why aren't they protecting America better? Who is protecting them? Who is encouraging them to be so weak and cowardly? Are they puppets financed by the NRA, a shadow organization with no scientific teeth, no moral or historic justification, and lessening popular support?

For such small fry, these modern-day Anti-Federalists "right-to-bear-arms people" in the NRA and elsewhere certainly are noisy. Wrong and ignorant, too. It's never been considered good, nice, helpful, and wise to have a gun in the home. These basic statistics provide irrefutable evidence they do more harm than good and should be banned.

People kill people, to be sure. Nuclear bombs kill people, don't they? Firearms and guns kill people, too. Yes, of course, they do.

With thanks to Huffington Post's article "Guns Don't Kill" by Geoffrey Stone, Professor of Law, University of Chicago.

UPDATE: Here's another important article called "American Gunceptionalism" also by Geoffrey Stone. Personally, I hope he keeps playing the same tune.

Turn In Your Guns. Please.

My previous post was written with a sense of personal courage just a few days before the movie shooting in Colorado. I had thought most Americans weren't in favor of gun control, but I have since found charts from studies concluding that gun ownership is decreasing, and for that I'm grateful. If only James Holmes, the midnight movie-theater killer in Colorado, had not owned firearms.

According to the Gun Violence Policy Center (vpc.org) in Washington, D.C., the percentage of households owning guns has fallen from around 50% to 30% since 1973, a period of almost forty years. The number of individuals owning guns in America has likewise fallen from around 30% to 20% since 1980. The states with the highest household gun ownership such as Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, and Nevada have the highest "gun death rate per 100,000" each year. The reverse is true as well: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York have the lowest rates.

This news is different from the noisy propaganda marketed by the National Rifle Association (NRA). 

Why has this happened? Reasons given in my research include the following ideas:

• military conscription has ended, 
• hunting has decreased in popularity, 
• hunters have been hampered by land-use issues and limited permissions, 
• fewer shooting ranges exist, 
• older white male gun owners have lost interest or died. 
• Oddly enough, the increase in single family homes headed by women has decreased interest in the ownership of guns.

I like the final words quoted below from an especially civilized American organization called The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:

• The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has criticized the NRA for its "warped conception of popular sovereignty...that citizens need to arm themselves to safeguard political liberties against threats by the government."^[48] It went on to add that "if [the NRA members] believe in the right to take up arms to resist government policies they consider oppressive, even when these policies have been adopted by elected officials and subjected to review by an independent judiciary, then they are opposed to constitutional democracy."

Yes, they're "opposed to constitutional democracy". I agree with them and my research indicates that the Founding Fathers probably did too, despite the bogus arguments promoted by the NRA.

 Constitutional democracy works by consensus, because "the pen is mightier than the sword". 

It's injudicious to assume the founding fathers of America had united views on the proper use of guns three centuries ago. Their constitution was a set of laws that worked for them at that point in time. It did not work for all people in all circumstances for all time. The "right to bear arms" clause enabled the minority white male voters to organize colonial law enforcement for the purpose of self-defense.

The NRA is twisting that earlier quaint need for police forces as well as a national military in America as a modern excuse to promote personal private gun ownership, and to reel in fee-paying supporting members of the NRA.

Sadly, the Supreme Court is divided on the issue, with some saying that the Framers of the Constitution could have extended, but didn't extend, the right to bear arms beyond the militia by adding phrases such as "for the defense of themselves". That's petty. It's splitting hairs.

Gun ownership in England, when guns were invented, was originally supposed "to preserve the hunting rights of the landed aristocracy" (W). The British at that time were more concerned with preventing the emergence of military might in America than the use of firearms for hunting.

What was the original understanding of the right to bear arms in provisions of the Second Amendment? According to the Maryland Law Review, an article by Saul Cornell gives evidence that the Framers of the Constitution did indeed differentiate between personal right to bear arms for self-defense and hunting, and the bearing of arms within "the militia". The Framers would have been aware that popular provisions indicated constitutionally distinct use of firearms whether for civilian or military purposes in the Pennsylvanian Constitution of 1776. 

Amazingly, the supposed rock solid tenets of the NRA and modern gun rights supporters,  that "any body of armed citizens is a militia with a constitutional right to take up arms against its government" originated in a highly unpopular so-called Anti-Federalist movement that opposed the Constitution of 1787, whose members were voted out.

The elite Framers of the Constitution did not view an armed mob as a well-regulated militia. Modern gun rights supporters have twisted this obscure branch of Anti-Federalist rhetoric for their own purposes to construct a bogus historical  basis for modern gun ownership. 

Leading constitutional scholars have not found any evidence to support individual rights to bear arms, according to Cornell.

Even historian supporters of the individual-rights thesis have never been able to produce more than a (feeble) handful of texts to support their claims, and have mostly just recycled the hugely-unpopular Anti-Federalist Dissent paper. 

Cornell's paper says that the preponderant majority of historical documents allowing the bearing arms in the founding era was "indisputably the orthodox military one"...and accuses naysayers of intellectual fraud and sophistry (ie trickery)!

We all know, it's common sense, those who own guns need beneficial occupations to distract them from hunting or committing violent acts. It is known through studies (NPR)  that social programs and jobs that keep youths occupied distract them from violent activities and promote lower crime statistics. The idea "that guns don't kill people (?) -- people kill people" is simple-minded foolishness. Guns are tools to kill people, just as nuclear bombs are.

The majority of Americans view (and should view) NRA supporters and gun owners as the modern-day radical equivalent of the disloyal, unpopular and unhelpful IRA, Basques, separatist Quebeckers and anti-Federalists of old.