That's about the extent of where the leftist gun-grabbers and I can seem to find common ground.
Recently, they've adopted a new tactic. They've always, as if on cue, made their emotional appeals to institute "common-sense" gun control, or something similarly-named. But they've always been short on the details. The more rabid (and, as it turns out, more honest) among them will put forth their simple platform: Ban guns. Confiscate them.
In the wake of the tragedy, the politicians and pundits of a more conservative bent will call on an end to politicization of the deaths to drive the gun-grabber agenda. They will say the political discussions have no place on the stage when parents and guardians are still being called down to the morgue to identify their children (which is, incidentally, absolutely right). They will offer "thoughts and prayers", which can seem like an empty platitude. And it sometimes is, but it's our human nature to want to find some way to console the grieving family and friends of the deceased.
As I said, the leftists have amended tactics recently. Now, they will tell the "thoughts and prayers" crowd what they can do with their "thoughts and prayers". They will push back against the call for common decency and implore anyone who will listen: "If not now, then when? Someone must do something!" they will cry.
We are doing something. We're letting the loved ones grieve in peace.
What you, the gun-grabbers, are asking us to do, is make big decisions while emotions are still running high, without the benefit of calm, reasoned, logic-filled discussion that can temper the nasty side effects of rash decisions. Side effects that are much more likely to be seen when logical reflection is allowed to participate.
But that's kind of the idea, isn't it? Because you, the gun-grabbers, know that if we have time to think about your proposals, and give them careful thought, we would never accept them.
So you exploit grief instead. You're despicable.
As to my proposal? Well, it involves analyzing the factors that make these mass shootings all too common:
- Preponderance of firearms, often illegally obtained
- Mental health and criminal background of the shooters
- Environment in which the shootings occur
- Reaction of the shooters when faced with resistance (e.g. being challenged by someone else with a firearm)
The US has a lot of guns, no doubt about it, but increases in legal gun ownership have correlated to a decrease in violent crime. When a certain percentage of the law-abiding public is armed, muggers, rapists, and other violent criminals will only prey on that public as long as the risk is outweighed by reward. A would-be victim that is able to respond with deadly force presents a risk to the health and/or life of the predator-- in other words, the risk goes up.
But what if certain environments reduce the risk to the would-be predator, by legally requiring would-be victims to render themselves defenseless? Usually, this disarming of law-abiding group is done in the interests of perceived safety: Discharge of a firearm, even accidentally, can endanger lives on board a crowded airplane, in a crowded shopping mall, or in a school. In the last example, we're also dealing with young people who have mental and physical abilities on par with mature adults, but often lacking the self-control and ability to think clearly in emotionally-charged environments, so we acknowledge these environments' restrictions are sensible, and we accept rendering ourselves and/or our loved ones defenseless as part of an implicit social contract whereby we get something in return: Rapid transportation to a desired destination, acquisition of materials or services, or an education for ourselves or our progeny.
But it only takes one to violate that contract. With minimal risk and high reward. In the case of the scum that conduct mass shootings, that reward can be revenge, some sort of perverse pleasure, or the desire for immortality through infamy. Both the risk and reward are timely: A shooter can achieve his/her reward in the time before resistance exponentially increases the risk.
So in our closed system, what increases the risk sooner? Removal of the means of violence? As I said, there are a lot of guns in the U.S. Nobody knows the exact number, but it is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions-- a minimum of 1 gun per capita. Confiscation, even if not constitutionally prohibited, would be a Herculean task.
What other controls are at our disposal? Reducing the access to guns from the mentally ill and criminals? We have background checks in place to do just that, but they are built on a system developed by flawed human beings-- some people who shouldn't have access to firearms slip through the cracks and end up with them anyway. Also, because our nation is founded on the notion of individual liberty, we must respect the rights of other, including the undocumented but nevertheless enshrined "right" to privacy-- the health records of our citizens are private, and while disclosure of those records for our mentally ill citizens may serve the interests of the State, our courts have often ruled that the State must demonstrate a compelling reason why they should go against the natural tendency toward individual rights trumping the interests of the State, as per the spirit of the Constitution.
What's left to adjust, in hopes of preventing these terrible tragedies? Increasing the likelihood of the shooter being met with resistance, and sooner. Much data exists to show when most of these scumbags encounter armed resistance, be it a cop, soldier, or average citizen with a gun whom had refused to be slaughtered without a fight. But with the "resistance in street clothes", there's an element of unpredictability: an environment of defenseless victims can be just that until it's not.
Risk versus reward.
Yesterday, the author used the example of a plumber to illustrate how wages should be set by market forces, and not by some bumbling government bureaucrats. The gist of the post was how the plumber is a skilled laborer, one whom can charge more for the service of fixing a leaky pipe than a fast-food cashier or burger-flipper.
Enter Dog Gone and her cognitive dissonance:
OK, not all plumbers are unionized. And even the ones that are, in fact, skilled laborers: They spend years learning the trade, be it from vocational schooling, apprenticeship, or some combination thereof. They have to acquire the skills somehow. When they take their licensing exams, or whatever plumbers do to get licensed, they have spent considerable time learning their trade. The licensing just says that knowledgeable people in their field have evaluated the plumber and deemed him or her as competent enough to upgrade your plumbing without flooding the basement.
So you admit that the job requirements are low. In other words, the job is a low-skill or unskilled labor. Answer me this: When an overqualified person takes a job, does the employer pay for the employee's skills, or the work product they produce?
Which is why said person should learn a marketable skill and/or gain experience so they can justify the higher wage he or she earns, in line with the quantity and quality of the work product he or she outputs.
To compare low-skill and unskilled jobs with high-skill jobs is the false equivalency.
Why do progressives always whine about unfair life is? Did they not hear or heed that lesson from their parents? Yes, it sucks that people with college degrees are flipping burgers. But I would ask what sort of degrees these people have that they can't effectively market themselves in an economic downturn. I would ask if they had a plan "B" for when their niche degree failed to land them a good-paying job. My ex-girlfriend sat for and passed the Minnesota Bar Exam in 2007, along with 600 other new lawyers. She quickly learned that in the legal business, it's not about what you know, but who. She clerked for a judge for a lot longer than is common before securing a junior prosecutor position, or associate position at a law firm. Ultimately, she moved to Texas and is working as an insurance agent now, a far cry from her goal of being an intellectual property attorney. She learned that in Minnesota, with some 500 new lawyers being admitted to the bar every six months, that supply simply outstripped demand for her skill set.
Come now, you don't get to make blanket statements and then not back them up. How are conservative policies at fault? The sub-prime mortgage fiasco is partly the responsibility of reckless lending, encouraged by a meddlesome government that thinks it's unfair that some people can't buy houses. Again, life is not fair. In its attempt to create fairness, both the government "watchdogs" and predatory/reckless lenders not only failed to help people buy houses and stay in them, but the policies resulted in a sudden dumping of real estate on the market. Great if you're a first-time home buyer with the means, lousy if you're a homeowner responsibly paying his or her mortgage, only to suddenly end up upside-down on the mortgage when your house loses a huge chunk of its value.
Who sets this adequate wage? Who defines what adequate is? The dollar value? What criteria are used to determine this value? What mathematical formula? How much emotion goes into it?
The determination of this value, I've always felt, is a contractually-negotiated number between employee and employer. That's what capitalism is. That's what free enterprise is. What makes the enterprise free is that the employer is free to decide what wage he or she is willing to pay to an employee for the work product, and the employee is free to negotiate for more or seek employment elsewhere.
Every time the minimum wage is raised, the employers operating on the thin profit margins have a couple of options: Raise their prices, which endangers the business' life expectancy; Fire employees to cushion against the increased labor cost (and likely replace the employees with automation); or close their doors. In two of the three scenarios, employees end up as beneficiaries of those same subsidies you're trying to get them off of, only now there's more of them.
Wow, quite the arrogant statement. What makes you an authority on how a specific business runs, and how many local, state, and federal laws they're required to comply with to stay in business? But I'm not surprised: Progressives are enigmatic mixture of arrogance with benevolence (in spending other people's money that is).
Other countries may be able to do that, but in this country, that's called age discrimination. If a fast-food joint has a choice between a teen and a senior citizen, which do they hire? The senior citizen who's likely to have a more business-like attitude and work ethic? Or the teenager with the energy to work the longer or harder shifts and ability to learn how to more quickly work the cash register?
The thing is they are not in direct competition. Wal-Mart and Costco cater to different groups of customers. Here is an excellent dissection of that false equivalency, courtesy of Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lauraheller/2014/06/29/walmart-and-costco-are-not-the-same/
Well, an employer who requires unskilled or low-skill labor does.
Paying people what they're actually worth, instead of what someone arbitrarily decides they're worth, is a failure?