Last Sunday the Iowa City Press-Citizen published a version of my "More Guns, Less Sense?" post of October 12th. I had written this in response to an anti-Second Amendment guest opinion that the Press-Citizen had previously published.
Although it was a very condensed version of the below post, it contained a few facts that my original post didn't. These included:
"A 1997 study performed for the Justice Department found that there are as many as 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms every year. Two years earlier, a study by criminology professors at Florida State University, put that number at as many as 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year. By any measure, that's a lot of lives saved from rape, robbery or murder.
"According to a 1996 study at the University of Chicago, states that implemented laws wherein private citizens are permitted to carry firearms reduced their rate of murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent, aggravated assault by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent. Contrast that with Australia, where in the six years following it's sweeping gun ban, armed robberies rose by 51 percent, unarmed robberies by 37 percent, assaults by 24 percent and kidnappings by 43 percent. Murders did fall by 3 percent, but manslaughter rose by 16 percent after the ban."
You can read the entire article as it appeared in the newspaper here. Or you can read the original extended blog post here.
Thank you to the Press-Citizen for presenting both sides of the argument.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Eliminate Iowa's Income Taxes
There seems to be a little more chatter about eliminating Iowa's state income tax these days. Ed Failor, Jr., President of Iowans for Tax Relief (ITR), for instance, had a guest column in the Cedar Rapids Gazette advocating such.
In the extended version of Failor's column on ITR's website, Failor cites a 2008 study by the Mt. Pleasant-based Public Interest Institute. The study found that South Dakota, which has no income taxes, outpaced neighboring Iowa in the growth of total personal income, per capita personal income, population, and non-farm employment from 1967-2007. Failor points out: "We all know people are not flocking to South Dakota for the warm climate. These jobs and former Iowans are leaving the Tall Corn State and moving just across our western border because there is no income tax in the Mount Rushmore State."
At least two Republican gubernatorial candidates have expressed support for eliminating Iowa's income tax. “That would be an ultimate goal, absolutely. Other states have done it and they have seen good growth," said state Senator and gubernatorial candidate Jerry Behn of Boone. I don't know whether or not Senator Behn actually worked to repeal the income tax while in the legislature.
Businessman, Corridor Recovery president and GOP candidate Christian Fong also supports getting rid of the state income tax. Fong says that his immigrant father put the issue into perspective for him. "He said, 'You don't need all that policy talk,'" Fong explained. "He said, 'High taxes are wrong because they inhibit personal freedom.' Done. For an immigrant from China who's bottom line is about the American Dream, taxation is really a freedom issue."
Whether or not the Republicans actually believe in any of the principles that they espouse while campaigning and whether they will follow through if elected remains to be seen. Either way, it's good to see that the idea of eliminating income taxes is at least part of the discourse.
In the extended version of Failor's column on ITR's website, Failor cites a 2008 study by the Mt. Pleasant-based Public Interest Institute. The study found that South Dakota, which has no income taxes, outpaced neighboring Iowa in the growth of total personal income, per capita personal income, population, and non-farm employment from 1967-2007. Failor points out: "We all know people are not flocking to South Dakota for the warm climate. These jobs and former Iowans are leaving the Tall Corn State and moving just across our western border because there is no income tax in the Mount Rushmore State."
At least two Republican gubernatorial candidates have expressed support for eliminating Iowa's income tax. “That would be an ultimate goal, absolutely. Other states have done it and they have seen good growth," said state Senator and gubernatorial candidate Jerry Behn of Boone. I don't know whether or not Senator Behn actually worked to repeal the income tax while in the legislature.
Businessman, Corridor Recovery president and GOP candidate Christian Fong also supports getting rid of the state income tax. Fong says that his immigrant father put the issue into perspective for him. "He said, 'You don't need all that policy talk,'" Fong explained. "He said, 'High taxes are wrong because they inhibit personal freedom.' Done. For an immigrant from China who's bottom line is about the American Dream, taxation is really a freedom issue."
Whether or not the Republicans actually believe in any of the principles that they espouse while campaigning and whether they will follow through if elected remains to be seen. Either way, it's good to see that the idea of eliminating income taxes is at least part of the discourse.
Monday, October 12, 2009
More Guns, Less Sense?
Peter Hansen, a retired chemistry professor from Iowa City, recently had a guest opinion article in the I.C. Press-Citizen. It was titled, “Our love of guns is nutty.” The meat of the piece can be summed up with Mr. Hansen’s statement: “I fail to understand how any intelligent thinking person can believe that more guns, carried by more people, at more locations, will result in a safer and more peaceful society!”
I’m sure that Mr. Hansen is a nice man, but I’ve got some problems with the conclusions in his article. Since it contained several unanswered questions, I thought I’d take a crack at answering them for the good professor.
Hansen starts off the piece by invoking the senseless murder of a good man: Aplington-Parkersburg football coach Ed Thomas. A heart-wrenchingly tragic story always helps to stimulate emotions while clouding reason, a favorite tactic of anti-gun advocates.
Hansen then talks about the Virginia Tech shootings and the small but growing movement to allow concealed carry on college campuses. “Gun advocates maintain that had Virginia Tech's students and faculty been armed, far fewer than 32 of them would have been killed in the 2007 mass murder,” writes Hansen. “Of course, gun advocates ignore the far greater likelihood of more frequent suicides, accidents and murders that would result from arming our campuses."
As a self-styled “gun advocate” myself, I couldn’t swear that fewer people would have been killed if some V.T. faculty and students had been armed that day. That would still involve an armed “good guy” being at the exact right place at the exact wrong time. The point is that concealed carry on campus would lessen the likelihood of a shooting taking place at all.
According to “Multiple Victim Public Shootings” (2000) by professors John R. Lott, Jr. and William M. Landes, concealed carry laws (wherein private citizens are permitted to carry firearms) reduced a states likelihood of having a “multiple victim public shooting” (2 or more victims) by 60% and reduced deaths and injuries from MVPS’s by 78%. Their research also showed that the more restrictions that concealed carry states placed on where permit holders could carry their weapons (more “gun free zones,” like schools) the less of a reduction in MVPS’s the state experienced.
According to the study "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," (University of Chicago, 1996) by researchers John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, states which implemented concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%. There was no corresponding “greater likelihood of more frequent suicides, accidents and murders” as Hansen fears. We should expect similar results arming campuses, where only a few law-abiding faculty members and older students would qualify (or even want) to carry handguns.
Now allow me to answer some of his specific questions.. Hansen asks: “Why do Americans feel the need to own handguns to protect themselves from a potentially tyrannical government? Germans and Italians -- who have experienced tyranny -- don't feel this need.”
Most Germans and Italians (and many Americans) would probably grudgingly submit to tyrannical government (as they have in the past). Does Mr. Hansen consider that a virtue? Many (but not all) American gun owners retain the anti-authoritarian spirit of our founding fathers who rebelled against a tyrant far less maniacal than the ones that the Germans and Italians tolerated and even supported. Apparently some Europeans have this spirit of resistance too, like the Jewish resistance fighters in the Warsaw ghetto. Armed at first only with a few pistols, they held off the Nazis longer than the entire Polish Army had been able to.
“Why do Americans fear that law enforcement officers cannot adequately provide for public safety?” he asks. Our law enforcement officers do good work, but the simple fact of the matter is that they cannot be everywhere when needed. The courts have ruled that police have no legal responsibility to protect any individual, only society in general. Even in the increasingly Orwellian surveillance-state that the British are creating, the cops can’t be everywhere. Violent crime rates against their disarmed populace are now higher than America’s.
“Why do Americans fear that strict handgun laws will inevitably result in hunters being denied their hunting rifles and shotguns? Other nations with very strict gun laws allow hunters to hunt,” writes Hansen.
Because in just about every jurisdiction where it’s tried, gun control begets more gun control. If handgun ownership for such a basic human right as self-preservation is not considered sufficient cause to own guns, then how can the recreational use of firearms be considered justification for very long? Hunting, if allowed at all, quickly becomes the domain of the rich and well-connected. Once firearms ownership becomes a purely recreational pursuit, bureaucrats like Rebecca Peters (head of the U.N.’s gun ban arm) can more easily tell you to “get another hobby,” as she snidely advised English sport shooters.
Hansen also asks, “To those who interpret the Second Amendment as an unqualified right to gun ownership, I ask, why did James Madison write, ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’ Why didn't he simply write, ‘The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed?’ Why the reference to ‘a well regulated militia?’ None of the five freedoms of the First Amendment are prefaced with a qualifying phrase.” This is a valid question.
In his book “The Bill of Rights Primer,” Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar explains: “[I]n 1789, when used without any qualifying adjective, ‘the militia’ referred to all First-Class Citizens capable of bearing arms. The seeming tension between the dependent and the main clauses of the Second Amendment thus evaporates on closer inspection- the ‘militia’ is identical to ‘the people’ in the core (First-Class Citizen) sense described above, encompassing adult male citizens eligible to vote, serve on juries, and hold public office. Indeed, the version of the Second Amendment that initially passed in the House, only to be stylistically shortened in the Senate, explicitly defined the militia as ‘composed of the body of the People.’”
Lastly Mr. Hansen asks: “[W]hen the Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, what was meant by 'arms'? Most guns possessed by hunters and farmers of that day were smooth bore muskets. Might those 18th-century congressmen have taken a different position had they observed the firepower of a Smith & Wesson Model 686 .357 Magnum revolver?”
I doubt our founders would have taken a different position. General Washington, for instance, was dismayed when many civilian militiamen (hunters and farmers) showed up with muskets incapable of mounting bayonets. In short, he didn’t want them bringing the “hunting rifles” that Mr. Hansen alludes might be permissible. He wanted these civilians bringing their own military-style “assault weapons” of the day. The founders would want their militia to have the best (read “most lethal”) small arms they could get. Since today’s robbers and redcoats have better guns, the founders would have no problem with the militia upgrading their arms as well.
I hope this all helps Mr. Hansen to understand how some fairly “intelligent thinking people” can support an individual right to keep and bear arms. If it was helpful to him, I hope the next time I need help understanding that darned chemistry stuff he’ll be there for me.
I’m sure that Mr. Hansen is a nice man, but I’ve got some problems with the conclusions in his article. Since it contained several unanswered questions, I thought I’d take a crack at answering them for the good professor.
Hansen starts off the piece by invoking the senseless murder of a good man: Aplington-Parkersburg football coach Ed Thomas. A heart-wrenchingly tragic story always helps to stimulate emotions while clouding reason, a favorite tactic of anti-gun advocates.
Hansen then talks about the Virginia Tech shootings and the small but growing movement to allow concealed carry on college campuses. “Gun advocates maintain that had Virginia Tech's students and faculty been armed, far fewer than 32 of them would have been killed in the 2007 mass murder,” writes Hansen. “Of course, gun advocates ignore the far greater likelihood of more frequent suicides, accidents and murders that would result from arming our campuses."
As a self-styled “gun advocate” myself, I couldn’t swear that fewer people would have been killed if some V.T. faculty and students had been armed that day. That would still involve an armed “good guy” being at the exact right place at the exact wrong time. The point is that concealed carry on campus would lessen the likelihood of a shooting taking place at all.
According to “Multiple Victim Public Shootings” (2000) by professors John R. Lott, Jr. and William M. Landes, concealed carry laws (wherein private citizens are permitted to carry firearms) reduced a states likelihood of having a “multiple victim public shooting” (2 or more victims) by 60% and reduced deaths and injuries from MVPS’s by 78%. Their research also showed that the more restrictions that concealed carry states placed on where permit holders could carry their weapons (more “gun free zones,” like schools) the less of a reduction in MVPS’s the state experienced.
According to the study "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," (University of Chicago, 1996) by researchers John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, states which implemented concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%. There was no corresponding “greater likelihood of more frequent suicides, accidents and murders” as Hansen fears. We should expect similar results arming campuses, where only a few law-abiding faculty members and older students would qualify (or even want) to carry handguns.
Now allow me to answer some of his specific questions.. Hansen asks: “Why do Americans feel the need to own handguns to protect themselves from a potentially tyrannical government? Germans and Italians -- who have experienced tyranny -- don't feel this need.”
Most Germans and Italians (and many Americans) would probably grudgingly submit to tyrannical government (as they have in the past). Does Mr. Hansen consider that a virtue? Many (but not all) American gun owners retain the anti-authoritarian spirit of our founding fathers who rebelled against a tyrant far less maniacal than the ones that the Germans and Italians tolerated and even supported. Apparently some Europeans have this spirit of resistance too, like the Jewish resistance fighters in the Warsaw ghetto. Armed at first only with a few pistols, they held off the Nazis longer than the entire Polish Army had been able to.
“Why do Americans fear that law enforcement officers cannot adequately provide for public safety?” he asks. Our law enforcement officers do good work, but the simple fact of the matter is that they cannot be everywhere when needed. The courts have ruled that police have no legal responsibility to protect any individual, only society in general. Even in the increasingly Orwellian surveillance-state that the British are creating, the cops can’t be everywhere. Violent crime rates against their disarmed populace are now higher than America’s.
“Why do Americans fear that strict handgun laws will inevitably result in hunters being denied their hunting rifles and shotguns? Other nations with very strict gun laws allow hunters to hunt,” writes Hansen.
Because in just about every jurisdiction where it’s tried, gun control begets more gun control. If handgun ownership for such a basic human right as self-preservation is not considered sufficient cause to own guns, then how can the recreational use of firearms be considered justification for very long? Hunting, if allowed at all, quickly becomes the domain of the rich and well-connected. Once firearms ownership becomes a purely recreational pursuit, bureaucrats like Rebecca Peters (head of the U.N.’s gun ban arm) can more easily tell you to “get another hobby,” as she snidely advised English sport shooters.
Hansen also asks, “To those who interpret the Second Amendment as an unqualified right to gun ownership, I ask, why did James Madison write, ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’ Why didn't he simply write, ‘The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed?’ Why the reference to ‘a well regulated militia?’ None of the five freedoms of the First Amendment are prefaced with a qualifying phrase.” This is a valid question.
In his book “The Bill of Rights Primer,” Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar explains: “[I]n 1789, when used without any qualifying adjective, ‘the militia’ referred to all First-Class Citizens capable of bearing arms. The seeming tension between the dependent and the main clauses of the Second Amendment thus evaporates on closer inspection- the ‘militia’ is identical to ‘the people’ in the core (First-Class Citizen) sense described above, encompassing adult male citizens eligible to vote, serve on juries, and hold public office. Indeed, the version of the Second Amendment that initially passed in the House, only to be stylistically shortened in the Senate, explicitly defined the militia as ‘composed of the body of the People.’”
Lastly Mr. Hansen asks: “[W]hen the Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, what was meant by 'arms'? Most guns possessed by hunters and farmers of that day were smooth bore muskets. Might those 18th-century congressmen have taken a different position had they observed the firepower of a Smith & Wesson Model 686 .357 Magnum revolver?”
I doubt our founders would have taken a different position. General Washington, for instance, was dismayed when many civilian militiamen (hunters and farmers) showed up with muskets incapable of mounting bayonets. In short, he didn’t want them bringing the “hunting rifles” that Mr. Hansen alludes might be permissible. He wanted these civilians bringing their own military-style “assault weapons” of the day. The founders would want their militia to have the best (read “most lethal”) small arms they could get. Since today’s robbers and redcoats have better guns, the founders would have no problem with the militia upgrading their arms as well.
I hope this all helps Mr. Hansen to understand how some fairly “intelligent thinking people” can support an individual right to keep and bear arms. If it was helpful to him, I hope the next time I need help understanding that darned chemistry stuff he’ll be there for me.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
ISU Professor Eric Cooper To Run For Iowa Governor
By Mike Malloy
AmesNewsOnline
(Sept. 30, 2009 – 8:30 p.m.) Eric Cooper, an Iowa State University associate professor in psychology and neuroscience, will run for governor next fall as a Libertarian. While Cooper is a veteran of local politics he is anything but a typical politician, as evidenced by his stark admission: “I’m not going to win.”
Victory for Cooper is redefined as finishing third, and receiving at least two percent of the vote, meaning the Libertarian Party would not have to petition or get signatures to be on the ballot in future elections. Cooper also hopes to raise the profile of Libertarians in the hopes that one of the two major parties would be willing to embrace Libertarian ideas.
Click here to read the full story.
(My thanks to Shrink Iowa Gov.)
AmesNewsOnline
(Sept. 30, 2009 – 8:30 p.m.) Eric Cooper, an Iowa State University associate professor in psychology and neuroscience, will run for governor next fall as a Libertarian. While Cooper is a veteran of local politics he is anything but a typical politician, as evidenced by his stark admission: “I’m not going to win.”
Victory for Cooper is redefined as finishing third, and receiving at least two percent of the vote, meaning the Libertarian Party would not have to petition or get signatures to be on the ballot in future elections. Cooper also hopes to raise the profile of Libertarians in the hopes that one of the two major parties would be willing to embrace Libertarian ideas.
Click here to read the full story.
(My thanks to Shrink Iowa Gov.)
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Time To Wrap Iowa's Show Biz Giveaway
Just about everyone in Iowa knows that the Iowa Film Office (IFO) has been embroiled in scandal lately. The office issues tax credits to filmmakers who film in Iowa. By August, IFO had issued more than $31 million in such credits. Unfortunately, some filmmakers have used their money to buy themselves fancy cars, rather than hire Iowans, and the whole operation is shot through with accounting irregularities and poor record keeping.
The whole mess got so bad that Governor Culver actually had to put down his paddleball, amble over and fire somebody. Of course, Culver’s political rivals in the Republican Party are capitalizing on the scandal. They could run the IFO better, they contend. Other critics say that the IFO needs stricter oversight. But should IFO and other similar incentive programs exist at all?
There are nut-and-bolts reasons that indicate that they shouldn’t. A study by New Mexico State University found that for every dollar that N.M. spent on it’s film program, it got back 14 cents in tax revenue. (The state of N.M. claims it gets $1.50 back.) The Wisconsin Dept. of Commerce found that for every dollar that it invests in it’s film program, it gets back $1.70. For other economic development programs, the return on each dollar invested was said to be $161.
Victor Elias with the nonpartisan Child and Family Policy Center has studied Iowa’s film tax credit. He says that there is little evidence that the program does much of anything. “I couldn’t even figure out how many jobs this creates,” said Elias. “Whether they were full-time jobs or part-time jobs. And a film shoot only lasts for so long, so we’re not talking about permanent jobs.” $31 million is a lot of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to invest on hope alone.
Even if the incentive program was well-run and got a return on the investment, it (and special incentive programs for other industries) don’t really make sense. While it may now be customary for state and local governments to offer special goodies to get targeted businesses to relocate here, it comes at the expense of people and businesses who have already invested their time and money here.
According to Iowa’s Tax Education Foundation, Iowa has the highest corporate and personal income taxes among it’s neighboring states. Some have ranked Iowa as one of the worst states to start a business. Does it make sense to offer monetary incentives to get businesses to locate here, while simultaneously driving established businesses out?
It would make more sense to implement policies making the state attractive to new businesses and existing ones as well. Lowering state taxes and red tape would be conducive to all commerce in Iowa.
The bottom line is that there is no cash incentive that government can offer to new business that it didn’t first take away from the people and industry already here. The state needs to forget the bribes and just get out of the way.
The whole mess got so bad that Governor Culver actually had to put down his paddleball, amble over and fire somebody. Of course, Culver’s political rivals in the Republican Party are capitalizing on the scandal. They could run the IFO better, they contend. Other critics say that the IFO needs stricter oversight. But should IFO and other similar incentive programs exist at all?
There are nut-and-bolts reasons that indicate that they shouldn’t. A study by New Mexico State University found that for every dollar that N.M. spent on it’s film program, it got back 14 cents in tax revenue. (The state of N.M. claims it gets $1.50 back.) The Wisconsin Dept. of Commerce found that for every dollar that it invests in it’s film program, it gets back $1.70. For other economic development programs, the return on each dollar invested was said to be $161.
Victor Elias with the nonpartisan Child and Family Policy Center has studied Iowa’s film tax credit. He says that there is little evidence that the program does much of anything. “I couldn’t even figure out how many jobs this creates,” said Elias. “Whether they were full-time jobs or part-time jobs. And a film shoot only lasts for so long, so we’re not talking about permanent jobs.” $31 million is a lot of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to invest on hope alone.
Even if the incentive program was well-run and got a return on the investment, it (and special incentive programs for other industries) don’t really make sense. While it may now be customary for state and local governments to offer special goodies to get targeted businesses to relocate here, it comes at the expense of people and businesses who have already invested their time and money here.
According to Iowa’s Tax Education Foundation, Iowa has the highest corporate and personal income taxes among it’s neighboring states. Some have ranked Iowa as one of the worst states to start a business. Does it make sense to offer monetary incentives to get businesses to locate here, while simultaneously driving established businesses out?
It would make more sense to implement policies making the state attractive to new businesses and existing ones as well. Lowering state taxes and red tape would be conducive to all commerce in Iowa.
The bottom line is that there is no cash incentive that government can offer to new business that it didn’t first take away from the people and industry already here. The state needs to forget the bribes and just get out of the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
