Gun control

Yes, everyone is talking about it now. Another tragic shooting and people are calling for the banning of guns, or at the very least more control of guns. Now I agree that a world without ANY guns would be great. They are useful but dangerous. Kind of like knives. Knives are very useful but they can kill a person too. Maybe we should ban them as well. What about a pointed stick? OK, this starting to sound like either a Monty Python skit or a George Carlin routine.

"...there are a lot of things you could use to kill a guy. You could probably beat a guy to death with the Sunday New York Times, couldn't you? Suppose you just have really big hands. Couldn't you strangle a flight attendant? Shit, you could probably strangle two of them, one with each hand."  

-George Carlin on airport security

Lets look at this seriously. What happens when you ban something that is harmful to people. Look at alcohol. It is fine if used properly, but it can cause accidents and people die. For 13 years this country banned alcohol. From 1920 to 1933 you couldn't buy a drink anywhere...or could you? If people want something bad enough, criminals will find a way to get it and make money from it. It is said that Prohibition gave birth to organized crime. There were good intentions in banning alcohol but it just didn't work out like planned.

"The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent."

-Rev. Billy Sunday at the begining of Prohibition.

Crime actually increased during the prohibition era. Homicides, drunk driving and thefts all went up. Crime was booming and criminals supplied what people wanted. Eventually the country realized this wasn't the answer to the problem. Yes, alcohol is still a problem and it still kills people but the only answer is to educate and enforce the existing laws. 

Education! Hey, there's a novel idea. We could teach gun safety in school instead of suspending kids for drawing a picture of a gun or putting toy solders on their skateboards.

Fifth-graders in California who adorned their mortarboards with tiny toy plastic soldiers to support troops in Iraq were forced to cut off their tiny little weapons.

Zero tolerance doesn't work. There are dozens of stories like this of children being sent home  because their mother put a butter knive in their lunchbox, or pointing their fingers at each other during recess in a game of "Cowboys and Aliens" (Apparently that is more politically correct than Cowboys and Indians)

I think we should educate the kids on guns, how they are used and how to be safe. No, don't give them all guns but instead bring in law enforcement officers to talk about guns, how they can be used to protect and defend and how they can be used by criminals to kill innocent people. I also believe we should train and arm some of the teachers or administrators. Maybe then one of the teachers that dies protecting her students ends up being the one that takes out the shooter.

So we have some choices to make. We can ban all guns in the country and just hope that the criminals obey the gun laws. We can just hope that guns won't be coming in from Mexico (nothing ever gets across that border without us knowing) and we can hope that no one will go on a rampage with some other weapon. Or we can teach people to use guns responsibly and arm our schools. Maybe part of the job application of a school principal should be competence on the shooting range. No, I am not saying we should all go around like this is the wild west with guns on our hips, but lets be realistic and understand that guns are not the problem. The problem is the mental illness that makes someone do these terrible things. That is where we need to focus. Lets pay attention and offer help. Lets not ignore that this is a violent world. People were waging war and killing each other without guns for centuries. 

Bottom line is this. Yes, I think we have too many guns. Yes, I think assault weapons are not necessary. A pistol, rifle, shotgun...a lot of people I know have these and are content. They don't need automatic weapons to shoot a deer. However if you take the guns away from the law abiding citizens then only the criminals will have them.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

It's time to vote......

If you are reading this you may have come here from Facebook to see what exactly is on my mind. I try to keep politics off that site since I have friends on both sides of the fence and don't feel it's a good forum to offend them on. I prefer to offend people here instead.

Those of you that know my political view know I sit more in the middle. I don't think there is only a left or a right. In every other aspect of life there are usually more than two choices. Why do we only have two when it comes to one of the most important things in our country? Does every single republican have the same view on abortion, or gay marriage or any number of moral hot topics? I seriously doubt it. So having someone as president that "tows the party line" is a bad idea in my opinion. But that brings up another issue. Why should our government even be deciding some of these things? Isn't the reason our Founding Fathers wanted to break away from the Kings rule because of too much government?

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have...The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." - Thomas Jefferson

Now, here is what I think we should base our choices of president on. Economics. Let me explain. I have been working in businesses for years. I have seen profit and loss statements, hired and fired people, watched costs of products go up and down and know what rising taxes and regulations can do to the economy. I used this example to an employee the other day that was preaching the "Make the rich pay their fair share" argument. I presently work for a hardware store that has two locations. The owner works at least 65-70 hours a week. He does a lot of things to cut costs, including fixing his roof and parking lot on his own and plowing his lots when it snows. He is not a rich man, but his business makes him one according to the government. I asked my co-worker what she thought the owner would do if he suddenly had a reduction in taxes and had a lot of cash sitting in the bank. Her reply was that he would probably try to open a third location. I asked what that would do. She said of course that it would create new jobs. YES! The business owners don't stuff their money into mattresses and take it out of the economy, they reinvest it into their companies, expand, spend on new products and the economy grows. Even the very wealthy do this when they have excess "billions" (did my best Dr. Evil finger quotes there) sitting around. If the money is in the bank it funds investments. If they buy frivolous toys like yachts and cars, it pays the salaries of the people that build, sell and fix those things. There are people working at the local marina that benefit when Mr. Bigfatwallet brings a new yacht in.

"Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy." - John F. Kennedy

I think Kennedy was onto something. He understood basic economics.

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

Now if you are still reading please understand this. I am NOT asking you to vote for Obama or Romney. I am just hoping you have a good understanding of what drives the economy. I think the best choice would be "None Of The Above" like Richard Pryor campaigned in Brewster's Millions.That is not going to happen though. We will end up with one or the other. Just keep in mind that the government does not create jobs. People create jobs. They create them with money. That money gets spent, over and over again. Those dollars generate more and more tax revenue. However there is a delicate balance. (see Laffer Curve)

That's enough from me and I hope I didn't offend anyone too much. Like I said, I don't preach politics, I just know dollars and cents and like everyone I want a little more.