On Guns and Self-Defense

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

--Dalai Lama XIV

Yesterday afternoon I became aware of the mass shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin. Six innocent people were killed, four were wounded, and the gunman was killed by a police officer who is also among the wounded. This follows closely on the heels of the theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado several weeks ago. My prayers and sympathies go out to those involved in both incidents, as well as their families. I can't, however, help but feel a personal sadness due to what I know is going to follow.

There is no doubt that sometime today we will again hear the cries of the leftists in support of more stringent gun control. Even in light of all evidence that suggests that less guns do not result in less crime, that call will be made. In fact, a preponderance of evidence seems to suggest that less guns actually equals more crime.

Take a look at two of the cities in the US that have the strictest gun control: Chicago and Washington, D.C.. These cities are among the top cities in the country in regards to violent crime. Compare those cities to cities that have less restrictions on guns and how people carry them. Those cities have considerably less violent crime.

And it makes sense. If you were a criminal, would you be more likely to attack an unknown person in a city where you knew that he or she would not be armed, or in a city where there was a great probability that they may be able to fight back with equal or greater force?

Let me point out something else:

• April 20, 1999: Columbine High School, 13 killed and 21 wounded
• April 6, 2007: Virginia Tech, 32 killed and 17 wounded
• November 5, 2009: Fort Hood, 13 killed and 29 wounded
• January 8, 2011: Tuscon, Arizona Political Rally, 6 dead and 8 wounded
• July 20, 2012: Aurora, Colorado Theater, 12 killed and 58 wounded
• August 5, 2012: Wisconsin Sikh Temple, 6 killed and 4 wounded

What did all of those events have in common? They all happened in "gun-free zones". They all happened in areas where law abiding individuals were legally prohibited from having personal firearms. They all happened in areas where the victims were left defenseless by the very laws that were ostensibly designed to protect them.

Contrast that with the conclusion from this article by Davi Barker (Google Cache copy here):

• The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.3
• The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.3.

That's pretty compelling.

Now we'll get to my personal situation. I work a night shift at a hotel. We deal in cash. We're always open. Regardless of the policies of my place of employment, I carry a firearm at work. I have a Georgia Weapons Carry license, so if you see me in public, and we're not in one of the few prohibited locations, you can be darn sure that I am carrying a firearm. I carry a firearm for the protection of myself and those around me. I refuse to be a victim. If I'm ever in a situation where I have to defend myself or others, I can, and I will.

Most of the politicians have it wrong. Outlawing guns only makes for a safer working environment for criminals. They do break the law for a living, after all. If the politicians were truly worried about protecting the citizenry, they would be finding ways to make it easier for the law-abiding among us to provide for our own protection. Maybe you've heard the saying, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away". I can not rely on the police to respond in a timely manner in a life-or-death situation. I choose to be responsible for my own security, as well as that of my family.

I pray for the victims of the recent shootings. I pray that they will find peace. I pray that this kind of thing will never happen again. But until the world becomes perfect, I'll keep providing for my own security. I encourage you to look into providing for yours as well.

Super Tuesday Results

Super Tuesday has come and gone in Georgia, and the surprise winner on the Republican side was Mike Huckabee. This came as a pleasant surprise to me, since he is the candidate that I placed my vote for. I supported Huckabee due to his support of one single issue: The Fair Tax. I firmly believe that the Fair Tax will cause the US to become the world's greatest tax haven, and that the citizens of the US will have to work extremely hard to not have a good job. It will give more purchasing power to the people, and lift the economy to heights that have never been dreamed of.

I do not think that Huckabee can overcome the lead that McCain has built up, but his strong showing at the very least helps to bring the issue of the FairTax more into the public eye, and the more the public sees of the FairTax, the better the chance that it'll get passed.

UN Tries to Take Over the Internet

There is so much media now with the Internet and people, and so easy and so cheap to start a newspaper or start a magazine, there's just millions of voices and people want to be heard.

--Rupert Murdoch

According to an eWeek article, the United Nations is planning to try to wrestle control of the internet from the United States. What makes this scary is that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the UN manages to take control of the internet that it won't be long before they will be regulating what can be posted. Any organization that cozys up to China and puts countries like Lybia on a "Human Rights Council" can't be trusted with something as important as the internet. The UN's own Declaration of "Human Rights" states that freedom of speech is guaranteed...unless that speech interferes with the UN's goals. Think about that for a moment.

To its credit, the US Government is planning to fight the takeover attempt. The US invented the internet, and the rest of the world is hitching it's wagon to the invention of the US Military. If they get especially belligerent about it, I would fully support withdrawing completely to within the US with regard to the internet. Just make it work for the US, and let the rest of the world figure out their own system. In other words, take our ball and go home. We'll see how long the rest of the world will last without being propped up by the US.

Fair Tax for all!

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

--Winston Churchill

Past history has shown us that there is a disparity between the two major parties in this country. Historically, the Republicans have espoused a love for smaller government and lower taxes. Democrats, on the other hand, have seen fit to try to put every aspect of daily life under the auspices of the federal government, and pay for it by increasing taxes on the "rich". Keep in mind that your definition of "rich" and a Democrat's definition of "rich" may not exactly coincide.

In the last couple of years, I have come to the conclusion that the two parties have the exact same love of big government. The only difference between the two is that the Republicans don't want things to happen quite as rapidly as their liberal counterparts. Then again, the federal government has increased more under the first administration of George Bush than it did under both terms of Bill Clinton.

Aside from the dreadful lack of constitutional education in this country, and the constant political brainwashing performed by government-run schools, the biggest problem that this country faces is the detestable income tax system we all live with. Some of us live under the immense weight of the tax code, while others live off of the largesse that the politicians spew out to the "less fortunate" of society.

What we really need is genuine tax reform. I don't mean a simplification of deductions or a reduction of rates. The current tax system is akin to that rusty 1973 AMC Gremlin in the bushes. It needs to be scrapped and replaced by a 2005 Corvette. Likewise, the current tax system should be scrapped and replaced with an alternative that will offer the high performance boost that our economy needs.

My choice is the Fair Tax proposal, put forth by U.S. Congressman John Linder. (You can read the proposal here.) While this plan provides for the continuance of the transfer of wealth to those who have not earned it through government social programs, it does dramatically change the tax structure from a mandatory tax to a voluntary one. This is a good change in that under this system we could actually choose the amount of tax that we pay.

For those who didn't follow that link and read the bill, the Fair Tax can be summarized thusly: Abolish the income tax and the IRS and institute a national retail sales tax. That sure is a lot simpler than the current system, isn't it? The percentate of sales tax has been calculated to be in the 18-23% range, and while this seems excessive, keep in mind the amount of embedded taxes we already pay.

An example would be a purchase of $50. Of that $50, approximately 22% is in the form of embedded taxes. What are embedded taxes? Embedded taxes are the taxes that the manufacturers of all the components of said product paid (and passed on to their consumer, the final producer) as well as the taxes paid by the final producer and passed on to the store, as well as the taxes paid by the store and passed on to you, the consumer. Got it? The Fair Tax does away with that embedded 22%, bringing the cost to you, the consumer, to $39. Let's just assume that the federal sales tax rate will be 23%, the highest discussed. Add the sales tax to the cost of the item and you have $47.97. You have just witnessed a net reduction in cost of goods to the consumer by just over 4%.

Another thing to keep in mind is that under the Fair Tax you will no longer be paying any payroll taxes (Medi-scare, Social inSecurity, etc.). All of these government programs will be covered by the income from the Fair Tax. So instead of going from having 15% of your paycheck swiped from you up front, you get the whole thing. On top of that, every month the government will refund to everyone the amount of taxes that they have paid on the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, and shelter. Now, here's the one place I disagree with the Fair Tax proposal. The proposal is to cut checks or make bank transfers to rebate this money. If those on government assistance can have their EBT cards, why can't taxpayers under the Fair Tax system have their Tax Rebate card? It's not feasible to write that many checks, and I don't really want to give the government access to my bank account, even if it is just for deposit. Just a thought to those of you at Fair Tax headquarters.

The real strength of the Fair Tax is that it eliminates taxes on corporations. Not that corporations ever paid taxes in the first place -- they just added their cost of taxes to the price of their product and passed it on to you, the consumer. Without corporate taxes, however, the United States would instantly become the place to be for a corporation. There have been stories in the news about companies moving offshore to escape corporate taxes. Imagine the rush to come back to the United States if all corporate taxes were instantly eliminated. We'd have companies banging on the door to get in, and the economy would absolutely explode. Unemployment? It won't be a problem, since there will be more jobs than we can fill.

The absolute best part of the Fair Tax (to me, anyway) is the reason it will probably never pass. Politicians have turned class warfare into an art, and they practice it mercilessly. Every election, you hear the Republicans screaming that the Democrats want to raise your taxes (and they do) and you hear the Democrats screaming that the Republicans want to cut social programs (and they used to). With the passage of the Fair Tax, all of a sudden this kind of campaign rhetoric becomes useless. Everyone pays the same tax, and they pay it based solely on their desire to spend. The use of the tax code as election leverage is not available any more, and most politicians won't give up their leverage.

I encourage you to all visit the Fair Tax website and learn more about this bill. The implications for our economy are overwhelming, but it will never happen without a grass-roots uprising. It's time to get active.

Thoughts on Social Security

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

--Winston Churchill

One of the Bush Administration's main objectives for the new term is the reform of Social Security. As a member of the sub-30 age group, at least for a couple of more years, I have to say it's about time. From the time I started receiving a paycheck, I have never thought of Social Security as something I could count on. I've always considered that deduction from my paycheck as money lost that I'll never see again.

Since I've always considered the Social Security deduction nothing more than government-sponsored theft from my paycheck, I'm looking forward to at least being able to take a little bit of that money and investing it in a private account. At least that much will be mine. The dirty little secret about Social Security is that there is no account with your name on it. Your deductions just get put in the big communal pot, and if you happen to live long enough, you might see a little of it every month.

The real problem with Social Security is that the money we've been paying in isn't there. It has been appropriated by politicians for uses other than it was intended. It's been happening for years -- politicians in Washington have put forth grand social spending plans, for which funding was not available in the general fund. To make up the shortfall, they simply siphoned the funds from the Social Security trust fund. By sometime in the next decade, all that will be left in the Social Security trust fund is a bunch of IOU's.

That's why reform is desparately needed. With private accounts, you will own your account, and the money in it. The politicians will have no rights to siphon that off for their grandiose spending plans, which is one of the reasons that they will fight tooth and nail to prevent it. Another reason that many of the liberal persuasion will fight any kind of reform is that privatization returns at least some of the control of the people's future to them. In the mind of a liberal there's nothing worse than an individual taking responsibility for their own well-being. When that happens, they are no longer relying on the government for their future, and to liberals, everything should be a function of government. (Never mind the Constitutional limitations on the federal government -- those have been ignored for decades. But that's another topic.)

The frustrating part of the whole Social Security reform business is the stance of groups who ostensibly have the well-being of senior citizens in mind. The AARP is at the forefront of fighting any kind of reform, regardless of the fact that the current system will be bankrupt in 2018. By fighting against reform, they are dooming those who will be alive and relying on Social Security in 2018 to a life with none of the promised support. My belief is that the AARP's opposition is more political than anything else. I base that statement on some of the claims the organization has put forth regarding reform.

The AARP claims that the Bush Administration wants to cut benefits. Not true. Everyone who does not qualify for a private account will receive all of the benefits that have been promised to them. There has been no proposal put forth by the Bush Administration to reduce benefits to current Social Security recipients, or even for those who are rapidly approaching retirement.

It's fearmongering tactics such as the ones being used by the AARP that lead me to believe that they are more concerned with politics than with the well-being of America's seniors. The question for us now is are we going to let them sway us from acting to save a system that is rapidly sliding down the tubes? Are we going to let the fearmongering by liberals in Congress and their lapdog organization the AARP keep us from setting up a system that will provide even better for future seniors than the current system does for current seniors?

The answers to these questions lies in how much backbone the Republicans and conservative Democrats (is there such a thing, now that Zell Miller's gone?) in Congress can muster. Truth be told, I don't have much confidence in Republicans being able to muster any backbone. The chances of that actually happening aren't borne out by history. If anything, the chances are better that the Republican majority will fold like a wet noodle in the face of lies and fearmongering by the left. Unfortunately it happens too often.

In the meantime, I'll be making my retirement decisions without the promise of Social Security. There's no way I'm going to count on a system that will have been bankrupt for twenty years by the time I retire.