Guns in America

There are a lot of guns in America today. Just how many you ask? Well, too many. In fact, as of 2007, the United States lead the world with a per capita basis of 89 guns for every 100 citizens, a commanding lead over subsequent countries of Serbia with 58.2, Yemen with 54.8, Switzerland with  45.7, and Finland at 45.3. In fact, U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the 2007 Small Arms Survey by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies. About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said. "There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said. Germany, France, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil and Russia were next in the ranking of country's overall civilian gun arsenals. Today, gun violence seems to be omnipresent in America as never before and people are demanding action from our government to quell the threat. Something must be done to protect our children. But what is the answer? Let’s look at some facts.

There were 8,583 homicides by firearms in 2011, out of 12,664 homicides total, according to the FBI. This means that more than two-thirds of homicides involve a firearm. 6,220 of those homicides by firearm (72%) are known to have involved a handgun. It's worth noting that violent crime rates of all types have been steadily decreasing since the early 1990s. No one is quite sure what is causing this decrease, though there are many theories, ranging from tighter gun control laws to more innovative policing and changes in the drug market. Whatever the cause of this decline, America still has a homicide rate of 4.7 murders per 100,000 people, which is one of the highest of all developed countries. Gun violence also affects more than its victims. In areas where it is prevalent, just the threat of violence makes neighborhoods poorer. It's very difficult to quantify the total harm caused by gun violence, but by asking many people how much they would pay to avoid this threat -- a technique called contingent valuation -- researchers have estimated a cost to American society of $100 billion dollars. The firearms debate usually revolves around "gun control", that is, laws that would make guns harder to buy, carry, or own. But this is not the only way of reducing gun violence. It is possible to address gun use instead of availability. For example, Project Exile moved all gun possession offenses in Richmond, Virginia, to federal courts instead of state courts, where minimum sentences are longer. Policies like these, which concern gun use, are sometimes said to operate on gun "demand," as opposed to gun control laws, which affect "supply." Similarly, while the idea of new laws gets most of the attention, some projects have focused on enforcing existing laws more effectively, or changing policing strategies the way Boston's Operation Ceasefire did in the 1990s. In fact, launching community-based programs has proven to be one of the most effective strategies for reducing gun violence. There have also been programs based on other principles, such as public safety education and gun buy-back campaigns. The White House proposals address both gun access and gun use, and include both new laws and enhanced enforcement of existing laws. Although countries that offer easier access to guns also have more gun violence, at least among developed nations, this doesn't necessarily mean that more guns cause more deaths. People may own more guns in dangerous places because they want to protect themselves. It's also possible that gun ownership is a deterrent to crime, because criminals must consider the possibility that their intended victim is armed. Economist John Lott did extensive work on this question in the late 1990s, culminating in his 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime. He studied the effect of right-to-carry laws by examining violent crime rates before and after they were implemented in various states, up until 1992, and concluded that such laws decreased homicides by an average of 8%. Lott's data and methods have been extensively reviewed since then. A massive 2004 report by a 16-member panel of the National Research Council found that there was not enough evidence to say either way whether right-to-carry laws affected violence. In 2010, different researchers re-examined Lott's work, the NRC report, and additional data up through 2006, and reaffirmed that there is no evidence that right-to-carry laws reduce crime. Meanwhile, other studies have suggested that reduced access to guns would result in less crime. These studies compared homicide rates with gun availability in various states and cities. The most comprehensive estimate is that a 10% reduction in U.S. households with guns would result in a 3% reduction in homicides. Internationally, the effect of reductions in gun ownership might be much larger. This might have to do with the large number of guns already available in the U.S.  Any reduction in gun violence hinges on whether gun control laws would actually make it prohibitively difficult to get a gun. 

I live in Massachusetts and I think this state is doing the right thing in terms of a common sense approach to the protection of rights and most importantly responsible gun laws and licensing. I would like to see all states adopt this approach to gun laws.  In fact in 1998, Massachusetts passed what was hailed as the toughest gun-control legislation in the country. Among other stringencies, it banned semiautomatic “assault” weapons, imposed strict new licensing rules, prohibited anyone convicted of a violent crime or drug trafficking from ever carrying or owning a gun, and enacted severe penalties for storing guns unlocked. The 1998 legislation did cut down, quite sharply, on the legal use of guns in Massachusetts. Within four years, the number of active gun licenses in the state had plummeted. “There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in 1998,” the AP reported. “In June 2002, that number was down to just 200,000.”  But the law that was so tough on law-abiding gun owners had quite a different impact on criminals. Since 1998, gun crime in Massachusetts has gotten worse, not better. In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, a striking increase from the 65 in 1998. Other crimes rose too. Between 1998 and 2011, robbery with firearms climbed 20.7 percent. Aggravated assaults jumped 26.7 percent. Don’t hold your breath waiting for gun-control activists to admit they were wrong. The treatment they prescribed may have yielded the opposite of the results they promised, but they’re quite sure the prescription wasn’t to blame. Crime didn’t rise in Massachusetts because the state made it harder for honest citizens to lawfully carry a gun; it rose because other states didn’t do the same. Guns don’t have borders. It’s time to button down the hatches on gun laws. Until we do illegal guns will flow, like drugs, through the path of least resistance and into states regardless of their laws.  Let’s all get on the same page here.

The Energy Crisis

Whether you call it Global Warming or Climate Change, a natural earth cycle or human influenced change, everyone seems to be in agreement that our planet's climate and environment is changing before our very eyes. But the question remains: Is it solely our burning of fossil fuels? Could it be a natural phenomena accelerated by our actions? Or does our burning of fossil fuels have nothing to do with these changes? Part of the problem is that climate science is very complex. It is a system science with multiple components numbering in the hundreds and when scientist attempt break them down they often reveal rarely do they know everything and rarely do they know nothing. It paints a vague picture of explanation without a definitive answer. Insert special interest groups paid for by big business and they latch onto convenient facts to support their argument that humans are not influencing this worldwide change. Although the vast majority of credible scientists from our very best institutions and universities around the world agree that the greenhouse effect caused by increased carbon dioxide levels from the burning of fossil fuels is having a negative effect on our climate and environment and contributing to the warming of our planet and the melting of our ice caps. This problem has its roots dating back to when we started burning coal during the Industrial Revolution circa 1780 and through up too today when the population of this planet has tripled and all nations are burning more and more oil, coal, and different gases to modernize its infrastructure.

No surprise that Republicans and Democrats are on opposite sides of this argument and its also no surprise that unfortunately a majority Republicans again side with big business and cherry pick their facts to support their claim and convince people that we are not the cause of this worldwide dilemma. All while oil, gas and coal companies continue to rake in record profits. Democrats almost wholly side with the majority of climate scientist who oppose this view and claim that the culmination of science and research is leaning to the human contribution of change to our climate. According to the Pew Research Center, Two-thirds of Americans (67%) say there is solid evidence that the earth has been getting warmer over the last few decades, a figure that has changed little in the past few years. While partisan differences over climate change remain substantial, Republicans face greater internal divisions over this issue than do Democrats. Just 25% of Tea Party Republicans say there is solid evidence of global warming, compared with 61% of non-Tea Party Republicans. The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Oct. 9-13 among 1,504 adults, finds that most people who see solid evidence of global warming – 44% of the public overall – say it is mostly caused by human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 18% say it is mainly caused by natural patterns in the earth’s environment. Among the 26% of the public who say there is no solid evidence of global warming, about as many say “it’s just not happening” (13%) as say “we just don’t know enough yet about whether the earth is getting warmer” (12%). Opinions of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents divide into four roughly equal size groups: 23% say there is solid evidence of global warming and it is mostly caused by human activity; 19% say warming exists but is due to natural patterns; 25% see no solid evidence and say it is just not happening; 20% say there is no solid evidence but not enough is known yet.

Personally, I believe in climate change and I believe humans are contributing to it big time, but, to be fair and in the name of full disclosure I'm not helping the situation out much as I'm one of those Big SUV loving Americans who tows his even bigger boat around getting maybe 12 miles to the gallon and when I'm not doing that you can find me on my (admittedly) obnoxiously loud custom chop cruising around to nowhere filling my 3 gallon tank every 4 hours. I acknowledge the hypocrisy of my actions and lifestyle and realize I/we need to start to make some pretty substantial and immediate sacrifices for the sake of our climate and environment for future generations. Whether climate change is natural or man-made or a combination of the two, the truth is, someday all this fossil fuel is going to run out anyways and we are going to have to make some hard decisions about how to replace it in our lives. We might as well start sooner than later. 

Boston Marathon Bombing

Patriot’s day in this country means something. It's a day of reflection. A day to recognize the great men and women who have come before us and made this country the great beacon of freedom and democracy it is today. For they were brave souls who demanded a free, safe and just society in which to live. And without fail every generation of Americans churns out new patriots who will carry that torch of liberty and determination into the future. We honor those people every third Monday in April.

In Boston, Patriots day also coincides with another great American tradition. The running of the Boston Marathon, affectionately known as Marathon Monday, and on that Monday the 15th of April 2013 the masses turned out as they always do along every foot of the 26.2 mile course to observe the great athletes from around the world as they pound the pavement mile after grueling mile feeding off the cheer and elation of the supportive crowd. At the finish line friends and family excitedly awaited the arrival of their loved ones. Little did they know that this would not be like every other Marathon Monday they have come to know.

I was at work a few miles away when heard it. Even over the rumble of the back hoe I was operating I knew instinctively what it was, that unmistakable sound. It immediately brought me back to my time in the war. I heard the first quickly followed by another.

At 2:48 p.m. as exhausted athletes crossed the finish line on Boylston St. to the jubilation of their friends and family, two brothers would attempt to change the memory of this day forever.

At 2:49 p.m. they would detonate an improvised explosive device directed at those very same cheering people and athletes and rip that cheer and jubilation away from them and replace it with fear, pain, death and destruction. Two bombs would explode 13 seconds and 550 feet apart on Boylston Street in the proximity of the Boston Marathon finish line, killing three people and injuring over 140. The scene was reportedly punctuated by broken glass and severed limbs. Onlookers fear that terrorists have struck America again. A White House official would later says the attack was being treated as an act of terrorism. “They just started bringing people in with no limbs,” runner Tim Davey of Richmond, Virginia tells the Associated Press. Jimmy Golen, "Boston Marathon Bombing kills 3, injures over 140", Associated Press, April 16, 2013.

The heroism that would ensue in the immediate aftermath and coming days of the tragedy would add all new meaning to future Patriot's Days' for all Americans, especially in Boston and for those affected by this cowardly act of terrorism. As well as catapult this generations new Patriots to the forefront of every other Americans thoughts, prayers and appreciation.

Carlos Arredondo, a Boston Marathon spectator, would quickly become one of those Patriots. Immediately following the first detonation he quickly departed the finish line bleachers, ran across Boylston Street and directly into the line of danger, vaulting over security fencing and landing on a bloody sidewalk, the Washington Post reports. In front of him, two women are on the ground frozen. Another woman meanders about in the thick smoke, looking down at the fallen bodies. “Oh, my God,” Arredondo says she repeated, confused. “Oh, my God.” He carries a camera and a small American flag, he takes four pictures, focusing specifically on a young man who lay on the sidewalk and had lost at least one leg as a result of the ordnance. Then Arredondo puts the camera away and asks the injured man his name. “Stay still,” he recalls saying. “The ambulance is here.” Carlos Arrendondo then assist the with the medivac of the young man. David A. Farenthold, “Boston marathon bystander Carlos Arredondo acted instinctively,” Washington Post, April 16, 2013. In another Heroic act that day runners who had just completed the 26+ mile marathon would also reportedly continue right on running to the closest emergency rooms a few more miles away to donate the much needed blood for the injured. 

On April 18th the Federal Bureau of Investigation took over the investigation and released photographs and surveillance video of the two suspects. The suspects were identified later that day as Chechen brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Shortly after the FBI released the images, the suspects allegedly killed an MIT police officer, carjacked and SUV, and initiated an exchange of gunfire with the police in Watertown, Massachusetts. During the firefight, an MBTA police officer was injured but survived with severe blood loss. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was shot by police and then run over by his brother Dzhokhar fleeing in an SUV. Tamerlin would succumb to his injuries while his brother Dzhokhar although injured, would escape.

.

Upon Dzhokhar Tsarnaev escaping a substantial police gauntlet all while hurling bombs out the window of a stolen SUV, his at-large status and authorities’ fears that he may possess additional explosives prompted an intense manhunt. SWAT teams and Humvees roll through residential streets with military helicopters hovering overhead and bomb squads ushered to several locations. Boston was effectively in lockdown. Transit service was suspended. Classes at Harvard, MIT, Boston University and other nearby colleges were canceled. Amtrak halts service into Boston. The Red Sox game and a concert at Symphony Hall were postponed and Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts directs residents to stay behind locked doors at all times. Shortly after the "shelter in place" advisory was rescinded, a Watertown resident discovered Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hiding in a boat in his back yard just outside of the police cordon and search area. He was arrested and taken to a hospital shortly thereafter.

During an initial interrogation in the hospital, it is alleged that Dzhokhar said Tamerlan was the mastermind. He said the brothers were motivated by extremist Islamist beliefs and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they were self-radicalized and unconnected to any outside terrorist groups. He said they had learned to build explosive devices from an online magazine of the al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen. He said that he and his brother had decided after the Boston bombings to travel to New York City to bomb Times Square. Dzhokhar was charged on April 22, while still in the hospital, with use of a weapon of mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death. He has pleaded not guilty to more than 30 charges.