Stricter Gun Controls Now Inevitable

Financial FAQs

You know the tide has turned against gun violence when even the American Medical Association calls it a public health menace at the finish of its annual convention.

“CHICAGO – In the wake of the worst mass shooting in American history and with more than 6,000 deaths already in 2016 from gun violence, the American Medical Association (AMA) today adopted policy calling gun violence in the United States "a public health crisis" requiring a comprehensive public health response and solution,” said its press release.

Additionally, at the Annual Meeting of its House of Delegates, the AMA resolved to actively lobby Congress to overturn legislation that for 20 years has prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from researching gun violence.

This is after the US Senate could not even agree on banning gun purchases for anyone on the terrorism watch list in the wake of the Pulse nightclub massacre. You know it’s a public health menace when such mass killings are the work of both domestic and foreign terrorists, whether at Aurora, Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, and Orlando.

You know more effective gun control measures are coming, including the banning of military assault weapons like the AR-15, when Nicholas Kristof wrote an op-ed stating that more Americans had died from gunfire since 1968 than in all the wars ever fought by the United States — a claim PolitiFact twice pronounced to be true.

“When 50 people were shot and killed early Sunday morning at a gay nightclub in Orlando,” wrote Kristof, “the toll from gun murders this year rose to somewhere around 6,000 deaths, which means if the trend continues, this year may end up with the highest gun homicide count since Barack Obama took office in 2009. Add to the homicide number the 550 or so victims of police shootings, roughly the same number of accidental gun deaths and the 21,000+ Americans who use a gun to end their own lives, and the total gun mortality number this year may go above 35,000.”

And now the women are getting together, as did those MADD women that enabled stricter drunk driving laws. (You would think the insurance companies would be behind this initiative as well, for all the money in lawsuits they would save.)

Recently, a powerful new gun control group has emerged, called Everytown for Gun Safety, a combining of several smaller gun control groups, including Women Against Gun Violence and Mom’s Demand Action.

This is while former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was getting ready to launch Everytown for Gun Safety with a pledge of $50 million, but it lacked foot soldiers. So today Bloomberg and the women’s groups have merged together with 3.5 million supporters.

And the nail in the coffin of unregulated gun violence may have been supplied by the now 8-member Supreme Court which allowed a lower court ruling banning assault weapons to stand, which in effect means that the Second Amendment right to own guns does have limits. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left in place gun control laws in New York and Connecticut that ban military-style assault weapons like the one used in last week's massacre at an Orlando nightclub, rejecting a legal challenge by gun rights advocates.

The New York and Connecticut laws, among the strictest in the nation, were enacted after a gunman with a semiautomatic rifle killed 20 young children and six educators in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. In total, seven states and the District of Columbia ban semiautomatic rifles.

“"With approximately 30,000 men, women and children dying each year at the barrel of a gun in elementary schools, movie theaters, workplaces, houses of worship and on live television, the United States faces a public health crisis of gun violence," said AMA President Steven J. Stack, M.D. "Even as America faces a crisis unrivaled in any other developed country, the Congress prohibits the CDC from conducting the very research that would help us understand the problems associated with gun violence and determine how to reduce the high rate of firearm-related deaths and injuries."

So we can now have a discussion about the latest public safety menace, the epidemic of gun violence. It requires similar treatment as did the Ebola and Zika epidemics—eradication of the carriers of that violence; which means stricter licensing requirements for starters, and maybe the banning of military-style assault weapons.

Harlan Green © 2016

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Gun Violence Has Too Many Causes

Popular Economics Weekly

The tragic Newtown, Connecticut elementary school mass shooting is just the latest in a string of mass shootings that have contributed to more than 1 million dead by guns over the past 3 decades in the U.S.—an average of almost 32,000 per year.
This is when no other country in the developed world has had more than 400 documented gun killings in a year, outside of wartime. The problem in understanding the causes of such mass shootings may be that much gun violence has many causes that make it difficult if not impossible to understand in isolation.
But not if we look at the culture of violence that has made U.S. the most violent nation on earth. In fact, gun violence, as violence in general, has too many causes. Studies bear out that record income inequality, a poor social safety net and lax, almost nonexistent gun control laws all contribute to the U.S. record as the most gun violent culture in the world.
The Trayvon Martin killing illustrated this culture with the Stand Your Ground Laws being enacted in several states. And thereby we are beginning to see where the National Rifle Association, backed by some elements of Big Business, is leading this country—into a greater lawlessness, at the very least. For the Stand Your Ground Law enshrines the gangster code—shoot first and ask questions later.
As Paul Krugman said in a March New York Times Op-ed after the Trayvon Martin killing:

“Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged). And if there is any silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing, it is that it might finally place a spotlight on what ALEC is doing to our society — and our democracy.”

Krugman was exposing the links between corporations and the NRA that continues to push for guns to be worn by everyone everywhere, with or without background checks or even licenses.
Why the push by the NRA, and Big Business for more guns, as I said back in April? The reason most gun advocates and the NRA give, is that it is for the purpose of self-defense in an increasingly violent world. The NRA even asserts it decreases violence. But studies cited in an excellent book, Gun Violence: The Real Costs by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig show that gun use tends to increase gun violence—i.e., there are almost 4 times more fatalities in gun-related robberies than other robberies with knives, clubs, etc.
And a study cited in the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) on home invasions found that just 3 percent were able to use guns against someone who broke in (or attempted to do so) while they were at home, when 40 percent of households have guns.
So it turns out guns are not very helpful in self-defense. Also overlooked is the fact that criminals are predators, and predators prey on the weakest and most vulnerable, not those who look like they can defend themselves. So really, does the agenda of the NRA to abolish all gun controls do more than reinforce the fear factor, the fear that your neighbor may be your assailant?

“But where does the encouragement of vigilante (in)justice fit into this picture?” asks Krugman. “In part it’s the same old story — the long-standing exploitation of public fears, especially those associated with racial tension, to promote a pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda. It’s neither an accident nor a surprise that the National Rifle Association and ALEC have been close allies all along.”

The culture of violence is not a pretty picture in our crowded cities in particular. Philadelphia averaged more than 30 gun-related deaths per month in 2011, when Europe as a whole had less than 300 per year. The last time U.S. gun violence was this high was during the Great Depression, when we had gangsters like Al Capone, John Dillinger, and Bonnie and Clyde.
English Sociologist Richard Wilkinson has brought this out in books and lectures, especially his TEDx lecture on the roots of violence and crime, in which he charts that countries with the most inequality in wealth are also the most violent countries. And surprise, the U.S. is now one of the most unequal countries—in terms of wealth and opportunities for wealth—in the world, as has been brought out by the CIA World Factbook. It is ranked 94th of the 136 countries ranked by the CIA for income inequality, next to Camaroon, Zimbabwe, which are some of Africa’s poorest countries.
There are many who will say that the deeds of a psychopath cannot be prevented. But is that the point when it is so ridiculously easy for an individual to purchase an arsenal without an alarm being set off? Why would anyone such as the Aurora, Colo. shooter need 6,000 rounds, for instance, said the New York Times?

“With a few keystrokes, the suspect, James E. Holmes, ordered 3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for an assault rifle and 350 shells for a 12-gauge shotgun — an amount of firepower that costs roughly $3,000 at the online sites — in the four months before the shooting, according to the police. It was pretty much as easy as ordering a book from Amazon.”

Do we need another reason to require reporting such weapon sales, other than for war?

Harlan Green © 2012

What Decline of Western Civilization?

Financial FAQs
It’s hard to say whether Harvard Historian Niall Ferguson means what he says in his new book, “Civilization: The West and the Rest”; that the western world’s 500 years of predominance are over, thanks to growing debt problems in the U.S. and Europe, and dwindling populations. He obviously believes it’s not a good thing.
Well, maybe not, but why worry about western predominance when so many Americans are suffering from the misdeeds of our own governance that has piled debt upon debt, all in order to make the wealthiest even wealthier?
It is true United States position in the world has declined—not as a military power, but in almost all the measures of social and economic well-being. This is reflected in studies just now coming out by sociologists and psychologists, as well as economists. Richard Wilkinson is one such researcher who has managed to bring together a huge amount of research—especially on how income inequality affects citizens’ well-being.
We have discussed how income and education disparities have affected individual states in past blogs that have divided them into Blue and Red states politically, but never socio-economic misery on a national scale. The list is long. The U.S. has highest prison incarceration rate of any country, combined with the highest per capita income, as well as sub-par educational standards accompanied by an income inequality level next to Bulgaria’s.
So, it’s true that the rest of the world is catching up to the developed West, and want what we have. For instance, the U.S. with 5 percent of the world’s population can no longer count on corralling 25 percent of its resources. Our military—a major source of budget deficits—is already stretched thin, for one thing, and can’t afford to invade another Iraq for its oil resources. In fact, those deficits are a major price we have had to pay to maintain our military dominance.
And we know from the #OccupyWallStreet protests and economic historians that the growth in income inequality has reached its limit. Americans are finally becoming aware, in a word, that they have made an enormous sacrifice—the 99 percent whose incomes stagnated because they didn’t benefit from the tax cuts, loopholes and such that have also elevated corporate profits as a share of GDP to the highest in history.
So the U.S. will continue to decline if we continue on the path of Oligarchy, where a few at the top have most of the wealth, and the rest of us have to borrow to maintain our standard of living. Then wealth will continue to be transferred to the developing giants who are willing to lend us money—China, India and Brazil with their young and growing populations.
But Dr. Ferguson’s theme isn’t new. Root causes of the rise and fall of civilizations were earlier explored by UCLA Professor Jared Diamond in his books “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, and “Collapse” in far more convincing fashion. Our technological superiority was enabled by having major resources such as oil, benign climates that allowed cultivation of the major foodstuffs, and domesticated animals that gave us immunity to the major diseases that have wiped out native populations where such animals didn’t exist.
It follows then that the huge debt loads are a symptom of the underlying illness, economic class warfare over the past thirty years that has taken away much of the wealth of the middle class. Governments can easily pay for public services if wages and salaries continue to grow. But there has been diminished income growth for the majority of Americans—the wage and salary earners who make up 80 percent of consumers.
We know where much of that wealth has flowed—to higher corporate profits, for one, as corporations cut back on employee payrolls and benefits. And those excess profits have created greater market instability, and so retarded economic growth rates. In his New York Times Op-ed, “It’s Consumer Spending, Stupid”, and various blogs, economic historian James Livingston says what has been known to most modern macro economists—consumer and government spending have driven economic growth over the past century, not corporate profits.

The great wealth shift began during the Great Depression, according to Livingston: “The underlying cause of that economic disaster (the Great Depression of 1929-33, 1937-38) was a fundamental shift of income shares away from wages/consumption to corporate profits that produced a tidal wave of surplus capital that could not be profitably invested in goods production—and, in fact, was not invested in good production…and that, on the other hand, produced the tidal wave of surplus capital which produced the stock market bubble of the late-1920s.”

So we know Niall Ferguson has taken the opposite tack. His glorification of empires has made him blind to the results. The west’s predominance was at the expense of exploiting underdeveloped countries, and when they began to want more of what we have, our privileged position began to decline.  Isn't that what we want?  To be an island of privilege among a sea of poverty does not make for a stable, or more peaceful world.
Harlan Green © 2011