Issue 246 Guns save lives January 9, 2014

Yes, guns can and do save lives here in the United States. But there is a reason that this is true for the United States.

How they save lives: There are two key examples of guns saving lives that are important to know about. The first happened back I believe around 2003 (not sure the exact year). A vice principle had his hand gun hidden in his car on the school premises. On that day a student came to school and began firing upon his fellow students out of revenge for bulling (if I remember correctly). This caused the vice principle to run to his car and retrieve his gun. He was the first armed individual to approach the shooter and held the culprit at gun point long enough for the police to arrive. Now it is unknown how many lives where saved because of his actions, but it shows guns save lives.

Another incident at a different school happened just this year and is very similar to the first. The shooter came to school with a shot gun and began shooting students (two were injured with one still considered critical). A security staff member who was armed confronted the shooter with his own firearm (a hand gun). With the shooter trapped, the shooter turned his shotgun on himself. Again lives were saved thanks to a gun. There are many more incidents similar to these that demonstrate that guns save lives.

Why do they save lives?: Like the incidents described above, guns can offer a threat to those who take advantage of a guns level of power. So the simple thought by a criminal that his targeted victim may in fact be armed and much more dangerous tends to make them shy away from their original intended target. Basically it is the psychology of the hunter versus the hunted at work. A predator (the criminal) goes after the weakest individual so as to increase the chances of success. No criminal goes after the strongest most fortified of individuals to rob unless they are capable of making those strengths redundant. A gun insures that a criminal will think twice, and maybe abandon their target. We cannot even begin to know how many lives have been potentially saved thanks to the increasing level of gun ownership in the United States. Currently the U.S. has enough guns so that each individual can have at least one sure is impressive. Not to mention with this increased gun ownership the level of violent crime has shrunk at almost equal measure. If this is directly related or the result of gun ownership in combination with better policing still places the numbers in favor of allowing more gun ownership.

Conclusion: Guns don't kill people, the people using them do. Criminals are predators seeking easy prey, but guns equalize the situation making the prey not worth the effort. As such, guns deter and reduce crime as gun ownership and the fear of reprisal grows. Many people are in areas where it takes at least 15 minutes to an hour for police to arrive. In these communities guns are needed in the home more than they need a law officer due to the length of time it takes for the police to arrive. The gun puts the literal fear of God into criminals and can stop an incident before it starts. This is part of the American gun culture and thus why in America, guns save lives.

Issue 245 Guns and mental illness January 8, 2013

Guns have come under attack lately due to the mass shootings that have occurred in both 2012 and 2013. But the guns themselves are not the problem, but the person wielding them. In this case the mentally ill have become the primary culprit in a number of these shootings. So what is up with these people even being able to get there hands on a gun in the first place?

The Problem: It cannot be denied that criminals will get their hands on guns and other weapons whether we make them illegal for everyone else to use or not. Because lets face it, they're criminals and they don't obey any laws. In fact, they could even set up there own weapons factories like the Taliban did in the Afghanistan mountains (yes you can make a gun at home even though it is illegal to do so). So it becomes about limiting guns getting into the hands of individuals that are a clear risk to themselves and those around them. In this case that group of people is the mentally ill which have currently zero restrictions on being able to get a firearm.

Why is this so?: Mainly the reason people with mental illness can even be able to acquire a gun is impart due to the mental health system in America. Currently, a mentally ill patient cannot get any sort of special treatment until they pose a clear threat to themselves or those around them. As such, if the person suffers from a disorder, their family cannot have them get help because they have not demonstrated a threat to anyone. So this needs to change.

What needs to be done: For one, the mentally ill need to have the law amended to allow them to receive help before they intend to hurt themselves or others. That is as simple as this change will get. Following this, the mentally ill will need to be registered in a data base defining their risk to others. This dictates if they can or cannot own a gun.

Why not ban all the mentally ill from owning a gun?: The main reason not to ban all people with mental illnesses is that not all of them are a danger to society and to make them all out to be a danger is a stereotype that boarders on full out negative discrimination. In fact studies have been done that show a good portion of our military suffers from some form of mental illness or another both while serving or developing while serving (PTSD is the main culprit). As such, defining who is a danger or not must be done on a case by case basis as some members of the mentally ill community may need guns for self protection.

Conclusion: You will never keep guns out of the hands of non-law abiding citizens and even if you try to prevent a mentally ill patient from acquiring a gun, it does not stop someone from buying one for them. However, we can reduce the problem considerably by changing the rules to allow the mentally ill to get the help they deserve, not when others feel they need it.

Issue 244 City States January 7, 2014

We had discussed the idea of changing the ideology of people in cities to counter their need for dependence on a government yesterday. However, there is one other alternative modeled on the ancient city States of ancient Greece. Here is the idea.

The idea: Cities currently have populations that rival the size of many small countries and as such need to be represented in any form of democratic government. However, the ideology of dependency is strong within these cities and may in fact be unstoppable. But there is a solution. At different points in history the idea has been thrown around to allow cities to become independent States (New York City had pushed for Independence at one point). As such we can push for such ideas again. City populations typically outnumber rural populations and thus often lean the elections toward a particular candidate with a certain ideology. To counter that ideology on a national scale, we let that city become an independent State. This confines the people who believe a certain way into one group while giving the rural communities surrounding the city a bigger voice in an election. Fairly easy to understand right?

Advantages: The advantages are as follows. First Rural communities gain a larger voice in government because they no longer have to deal with the overwhelming populations that exist in cities. In fact, if you look at electoral maps of New York and Florida for instance, you will see that the majority of the counties in those States voted for Mitt Romney in the last Presidential election. However, President Obama won those States due to the major cities that overwhelmingly voted for him as they contained the most electoral districts based on population size. So this will eliminate that problem.

In addition, cities have typically consumed sub-urban and rural communities that surround them as they continue to expand outwards. This means that people close to cities may become enveloped by them and be subject to their taxes and fees for mass transit. By making these cities States, it would forcefully limit the cities size preventing development beyond its boundary line. As such, communities surrounding cities can rest assured that they will not become engulfed by the city next door. Also, it forces cities to innovate with respect to their size and scope. Cities will have to build vertically both up and down to accommodate all the people who live in them. This may also force some groups of people out of the cities which force them into other communities exposing them to other ideas of how to live outside of cities. Therefore cities can either become factory cities for middle class workers, playgrounds for the rich, of bastions of hope for the poor depending on how the city States government intends to have the city develop further.

Is it feasible: Yes, but it will be very hard to do. In the United States, the States themselves must agree to allow parts of themselves independence followed by the federal government allowing them into the union. If neither of those things occurs then the plan falls short. Elections will also be much more interesting as the city State has its own voice and the rural and sub-urban having theirs. Politicians may fear that one side will gain too much of an advantage ideologically and politically to allow this to occur. So politicking is a problem to this ideas implementation.

Conclusion: This is simply an idea. I doubt that something like these will ever occur, let alone in my lifetime. However, the advantages are clear with respect to defining a city's limits and the rural communities’ limits which may in fact benefit both communities as politicians who have both within there influence no longer have to meet competing interests. Thanks again for reading one of my (hopefully) interesting ideas.

Issue 143 City Counter balance January 6, 2014

We had previously talked about why cities were very liberal, but we did not discuss how to counter this growing ideology of dependency of government. So here it goes.

Self reliance: The first method, or part of the method, is to replace the dependency mindset with one of self reliance. This means implementing an education program in urban schools that empower students to rely on themselves and their abilities. As such, students are given the mental courage to say, I can succeed. From there they are taught how to seek out and obtain the resources they need to learn on their own without relying on a teacher. In essence it will be a curriculum that teaches independence. This approach will filter to parents and other adults through these kids. At this point the mentality is changed to a degree that erodes the dependency mindset. Psychologically dependence will disappear, but the people will still be reliant on certain services provided by the government. This is where part two comes in.

Part 2: What the green movement does not realize is that the technology they are pushing is also pushing for independence from government. If a building for instance comes completely off the grid (electrically and also with respect to water supply) it will change attitudes of these individuals in the cities. Right now, people rely on the basics of city life from the government, but if things like solar power, wind power, and city roof water collection and gardening become more and more mainstream then the government will loose its value. So, green technology will give landlords and other businesses in cities independence as well. Again this, once it becomes public knowledge, removes the idea from peoples heads that the government can provide the essentials for city living and by de-facto, can solve everything.

The 3rd; Faith: One of the other components of cities is the lack of faith. Many religions have abandoned the idea of expanding into the cities further than what they have currently. But if the faiths begin to offer services that are superior to welfare, to the cities marriage services and to even provide an alternative for an old age pension system like social security, then people will completely look away from government. By offering these services, the people will realize that they have the power to help through an institution outside of government. Also, by expanding the faith based communities in cities, you empower individuals further and provide a more moral foundation for individuals in cities rather than the liberal concept of the ends justifying the means.

Conclusion: Some of these are practical like the things described in the section on the green technology and on faith. The education one will be much harder as it can only be easily implemented in private schools and home schooling, while public education will still be controlled by the State and thus can deliver whatever message it wants. It really comes down to the fact that government is only needed for key specific things like law enforcement and lawmaking and even then private groups once laws are written can be hired to do the same job. Over half the fire departments in the United States are volunteer or run privately (no government needed). New York's original subway system was done by private corporations until the city government took it all over to gain that revenue for themselves. So if these things can be done privately, then nearly everything can without any loss for the individuals using these services. As such, the liberal mindset is a false promise with respect to government being the provider of all the needs of the individual. The truth is that government is needed very little and the sooner we realize that the better.

Issue 142 Do we need Saints? January 3, 2014

Saints are those people who have been deemed by a religion worth remembering for their miracles and for being blessed by God. But does it go too far?

Why question: The reason why I question the need of saints is because we pray to them in the same way we might pray to God. At some point while I myself prayed, I began to question if I was violating the first commandment "thou shalt not worship any God before me." I remembered that Buddha was really a man who was elevated to god status by his followers and later worshipers. So my worry is that we are forgetting God and his first commandment in exchange for a bunch of gods whom we call saints. It was this fear that had the Vatican ban the cult of the dead in Europe where people would visit the mass graves from World War two and pray to these nameless victims. There was such a following where in places they had the people’s skulls on display where they would give the skulls gifts and even face them away from each other thinking they would talk. In Haiti, they worship a version of Christianity that integrates voodoo and have animals, and other natural spirits that are prayed too. Now in Mexico, they have alters to the Virgin Mary. All of these are people from the past or spirits that are slowly elevated to the status of a God. As such the Catholic Church will periodically warn and eventually ban such practices. So if Saints and the like invite such behavior, then why have them.

The reason: Saints exist for a purpose. They are there to serve as life examples in the same way that Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi serve as people’s idols or hero's. We learn from there mistakes and try to emulate their good points. It is all about being worthy of Gods grace and maybe we too would be given a gift so as to impart a miracle. Some faiths completely remove saints completely for the aforementioned reasons, but they do serve a purpose. Even if you ban Saints as a whole, it does not mean that at some point people may try to elevate someone to the level of a god in the first place.

Conclusion: So the lesson here to my more religious readers is to ensure that you are not violating the first commandment or similar law in your own faith. I questioned my faith and do so constantly (though I do not consider myself all that religious) so as to better understand my self and my beliefs. Hopefully this helps you to question your own self to make yourself a better person.

Issue 241 Inspiring People January 2, 2014

What constitutes an inspiring person? Why should we follow there example? Well, I have wondered why people admire others like actors and other people who appear to be in positions of authority, power, or wealth. However, I questioned the very notion of admiring those people as a whole. Surely these people are not that worthy of admiration such as the Kardashian sisters or Paris Hilton who gets by on looks? Or is there something else at there core that is actually truly notable that should be emulated?

Decisions: We can look at people like a puzzle, but each piece is unique in the fact that one part may be worthy of praise while the others we may look on in disgust. As such, I personally look at individuals (or at least try my very best to) view them based on their actions. Let us take Nelson Mandela for example. He was an avid communist, and in his youth was violent. However, when he was released from prison he did something important. Mandela made the decision to change South Africa through non-violence. I will always disagree with communism as a whole due to how it always devolves into tyranny and dictatorship, but I can still admire Mandela for the hope he brought to the South African people. He is worthy of praise because he renounced violence and that he brought people together for the sake of freedom. As people go, Mandela is inspiring because he demonstrated that a single person can make a difference. So I will cleanly say that Mandela is worthy of imitation with respect to the example of people being able to make a difference, but I will not say to admire his politics.

Admire and scorn: Just like Mandela we can admire and be inspired by one part of the person, but still abhor the other part. Look at the Kardashian sisters as an example. They came to fame through sex tapes and pornography rather than hard work (they may argue that though). However, after they gained that attention they used it to their advantage to create a clothing line and host television shows. So the part you can admire is that they used the capitalist system to take advantage of their fame, the fortune they made from it and their ingenuity for designing cloths. The rest you can still look at with scorn. Love them or hate them, they set an example on how to run a successful business.

Conclusion: All people in power are like this. You can admire their message like the President Obama’s hope and change, their ideas, or their deeds, but you do not have to emulate the whole individual. No one has to copy the Presidents politics to believe in the hope and change message, or Nelson Mandela's communist beliefs to copy his example of one man making a difference. Each person has pieces of themselves that are worth admiring or emulating, and equally so parts that are worth learning what not to do. So do not let your view of someone be clouded by one simple wrong, but look at the actions and deeds of that individual. Use the teachings of Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. and look at the person character and with that see what is worth admiring in each and every individual.

Issue 240 New Years Day January 1, 2014

Well we made it. It is now official; we are in the year 2014. When I look back, it is kind of amazing that I even got this far with my blog. I actually started it the Thursday after I broke up with my girl friend who claimed I was full of useless information (including my Bachelors degree in political science). I had thought about writing a blog even before I met her, but never found the motivation to get up and do it until me and her broke up. Now my motivation to keep writing is you, my readers. I enjoy sharing what I know with you all and I look forward to any comments or questions you put in the comments section (only 3 so far, hopefully that is because what I'm writing is just that clear to all of you).

Well in any case, I'll tell you my New Years resolution. My resolution is to continue writing and finding interesting topics to share. With those topics I hope to inspire and enlighten you the reader, or at least make you question the world around you as these topics make me do constantly. Basically, I want to create a conversation to develop ideas and enhance knowledge, with the hope that that knowledge becomes useful to all of you at sometime or another.

So my readers thank you once again for sticking with me. Have a very happy and healthy New Year.