More Women are Supporting the Use of Guns for Protection

Many women are sensitive to the gun control topic – as a higher percentage of women than men are advocates for more gun control. In December 2014, according to the Pew Research Center, only 51% of women said owning a gun protects people from crime, compared to the 63% of men who said so. According to Pew, since 2012 there has been an 11% increase in the number of women who said owning a gun protects people (Chappell). So more women are now changing their minds about guns, as they need to for their safety and for the safety of their families.

Flickr image by Klaudyna

Amanda Collins was raped in 2007 on the University of Reno-Nevada campus by James Biela, a serial rapist who had raped two women and killed another. Collins, though she had a concealed carry permit, was attacked at gunpoint but had no gun on her at the time due to her compliance with university policy prohibiting concealed weapons on campus (Pavlich).

During a Colorado hearing on laws that would prohibit concealed carry on college campuses, Collins said, “If I had been carrying that night, two other rapes would have been prevented and a young life would have been saved. All of these [gun prohibition laws] are just sentiments that give a false sense of security. In my experience I know that the university that I attended, the University of Nevada-Reno, they didn't have any call boxes the night I was attacked. They afterwards installed them but I can tell you that a call box above my head while I was straddled on the parking garage floor being brutally raped wouldn't have helped me one bit. The safe zone? I was in a safe zone and my attacker didn't care” (Pavlich). Amanda Collins also declared that a rape whistle, which was suggested to be the solution to prevent rape by Representative Joe Salazar, would not have helped in her isolated situation (Pavlich).

In 2003, Kaye Booth, a writer for The Freeman, and her husband were both attacked while on mountain trails. A man approached with a rock and struggled with her husband. The author then felt the need to pull out her 9mm and fire at the attacker, who thereafter fled. “If my six-foot 220-pound husband couldn’t fend off the man, how effective would a 130-pound woman blowing a rape whistle have been in a similar circumstance?” (Booth). After this incident, the author felt that the gun protected her and her husband from death (Booth).

Martha Lewis, another woman who felt the need to use a gun because of a threatening situation, had her home broken into in 2012 early one morning. She told her two daughters to go into a bedroom and arm themselves with weapons to protect themselves. They were all at the top of the stairs when they saw a man standing at the bottom. He then began approaching them and asked if Lewis was going to shoot him, to which she replied that she would if she had to. Because the man kept coming, she made good on her promise of shooting him. The intruder stumbled outside and remained there until the police arrived to find him. After the incident, Lewis said to reporters: “There’s so much talk about banning guns and gun control but they’re for protection,” she said. “There’s no way that I could have fought him off” (Morgenstern).

In all of these scenarios women were threatened in dangerous and life-threatening

situations. In Collins’ case, she followed the law and paid a price for it. There is a very strong feeling by many that people should not have to choose between protection and following the law. Simply put: gun control laws put people’s lives at risk (Pavlich; Booth). Women especially should be concerned about gun control laws because guns are a method of easy and quick defense in the case of a threatening situation. Their natural right to self-preservation and to protect their families should not be tampered with, but rather respected.

Though females are less victimized than males: 15.8 vs. 18.4 per 1,000, overwhelmingly more women are raped compared to men (Crime in America.Net). In 2011, the rate of forcible rapes was estimated at 52.7 per 100,000 female inhabitants (Forcible Rape). The number of unreported rapes is in actuality drastically higher: according to statistics from 2008 to 2012 by Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network estimated only 40 percent of rapes get reported to the police (Lee).

More and more women are seeing the need to protect themselves than ever before (Chappell). Collins, Booth, and Lewis, are three women whose lives were threatened and, except in Collins’ case, defended themselves with a firearm. Both Booth and Lewis recognized how vulnerable they really would have been had they not been in possession of a gun and known how to use it properly (Booth; Morgenstern). Had Collins been in possession of her firearm, she wouldn’t have felt vulnerable while being on campus and it is probable that she wouldn’t have been raped (Pavlich). Increasing numbers of women, being concerned about their own vulnerability of being a victim and of their loved ones of being victims, are exercising their right to keep and bear arms. That right should be respected in order to decrease the chances of people being victimized.

The number of criminals who used a firearm or weapon to commit a rape, aggravated assault, or burglary is actually quite unsubstantial. According to the Bureau of Justice, from 2005-2010, a weapon was used in only 11% of rapes (Female Victims). As of 2011, a firearm was used in 21% of aggravated assaults compared to cutting instruments 19.1%, and other weapons 32.8% (Aggravated Assault). Between 2003 and 2007, only in 12% of violent household burglaries did the burglar use a firearm, while 61% of all burglars did not use one (Victimization During Household Burglaries). This data suggests that women could have the upper hand in attempted rapes, aggravated assaults, and burglaries by having a weapon on their person, due to the fact that the criminals in those cases are usually not armed with a quick and easily accessible weapon such as a firearm.

Although data suggests that more and more women are realizing the usefulness of a firearm, there are still plenty who don’t (Chappell). If more pro-gun control women heard stories like that of Collins, Booth, and Lewis, and realized the significance of data of the specific types of crime, perhaps they would feel differently about the use and restrictions of guns.

Booth, Kaye. "Armed Women, Empowered Women." The Freeman 21 May 2013: 1. web. 25 January 2015. 
Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010." 2013. web. 30 January 2015.
—. "Victimization During Household Burglary." 2010. web. 30 January 2015.
Chappell, Bill. "Gun Rights Outweigh Gun Control in New Pew Survey." The Two Way 10 December 2014: 1. web. 25 January 2015.
Crime in America.Net. "What Are My Chances of Being a Victim of Violent Crime?" Crime in America.Net 13 December 2010: 1. web. 25 January 2015.
FBI. "Aggravated Assault." 2011. web. 30 January 2015.
—. "Forcible Rape." 2011. web. 28 January 2015.
Lee, Michelle Ye Hee. "The Truth About a Viral Graphic on Rape Statistics." Washington Post 9 December 2014: 1. web. 30 January 2015.
Morgenstern, Madeleine. "Alabama Woman Shoots Home Intruder to Protect Herself and Her Ax- and Knife-Wielding Daughters." The Blaze 17 August 2012: 1. web. 28 January 2015.
Pavlich, Katie. "Colorado Democrat Lectures Rape Survivor Amanda Collins About Rape "Statistics"." Townhall 5 March 2013: 1. web. 28 January 2015.

"Income inequality may actually be good news": Op-ed authored by Daniel J. Smith and Rachel Freeman

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/02/income_inequality_may_actually.html#incart_river

The Failure of the IHS

Flickr image by Chiot's Run.

Socialized healthcare for Native Americans is an example of socialism’s failure; whereas, the alternative of healthcare privatization leads to better health and less waste of tax dollars. The government bureaucracy that provides socialized healthcare for Native Americans is the IHS (Indian Health Services). For decades, it has been providing healthcare that is mediocre or worse and has been wasting our tax dollars (Hollis).

Actually, this socialized healthcare has led to a deterioration in the health of Native Americans. 2007 infant mortality rates among Native Americans in the US were 1.4 times higher than non-hispanic whites, heart disease rates were 1.2 time higher, HIV/AIDS rates were 30% higher, liver cancer and inflammatory bowel disease were 2 times higher, diabetes-related death rates were 4 times higher, and life expectancy on average was 4 years shorter for Native Americans than the population as a whole (“Native Americans”). In 2010, life expectancy for Native Americans throughout the US was 76.9 years, compared to 86.5 years for Asians, 82.8 years for Latinos, and 78.9 for whites, while African Americans had a worse life expectancy than Native Americans with 74.6. Further, 2010 life expectancies for just Native Americans living in Montana and South Dakota were the worst among all races in US states: 69.2 and 68.2 respectively. In other states that have substantial Native American populations, the life expectancies were the lowest among any race, except a year lower for African Americans than Native Americans who live in Oklahoma (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation).

Similar to the IHS, the VA has similar inefficiencies and an ineffectiveness that has led to mediocre or worse healthcare for veterans. The presence of similar problems under the VA indicates that the problems under both the IHS and the VA are chronic of government-run systems; contrary to the beliefs of politicians and the media: that more accountability, funding, and more regulation can fix the ills of the bureaucracies (“Not Just the VA”). The government bureaucracy IHS is not well-known nor are its inadequacies well-known. More exposure leads to an understanding of why government-run healthcare doesn’t work but why private healthcare is the best solution to waste fewer tax dollars and have better health.

The IHS is just another government bureaucracy typical of unaccountability. In July 2008, the Government Accountability Office reported that IHS lost $15.8 million worth of equipment including: unusable Jaws of Life machines, ultrasound machines, x-ray machines, and trucks – as well as $700,000 worth of computers ruined by bat dung. (Hollis; “Not Just the VA”). With over 14,000 employees, including 8 assistant surgeon generals, 439 “Director Grade” bureaucrats, and 601 “Senior Grade” bureaucrats, it seems as if there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Really, is over 1,000 people “running” the IHS needed and worth the taxpayers’ money? (“Not Just the VA”). What the bureaucrats in charge of the IHS really do is scrimp when budgeting for the population of Native Americans, and set most of the money aside for themselves instead of for the IHS staff (“Not Just the VA”).

As of 2009, $6,000 was spent per person on healthcare across the US, while $2,100 was spent per Native American via the IHS (“Native Americans”). The common wisdom on reservations is “don’t get sick after June” because June is the month when the money that is supposed to be “budgeted” runs out (“Native Americans”; “Not Just the VA”; Hollis). In addition, “low salaries contribute to unfilled vacancies, poor retention, and low morale among staff, causing waiting lists and inferior treatment for patients. The IHS has job vacancy rates for healthcare professionals, ranging from 12 percent to 32 percent” (“Not Just the VA”). The patients should be expertly taken care of by such a planned system. However, this is not the case at all. The data points to a waste in tax dollars by the corrupt government bureaucracy.

The type of care known by Native Americans who use the IHS’s services range from misdiagnoses and improper treatments, to no care at all due to money constraints. Cataracts, cancer, gall bladder surgery, and frostbite are all crucial health problems that have been left untreated by IHS staff (Hollis).

Improper treatment suggestions include that of Jay Littlewolf, a Cheyenne staying on a reservation in Montana, who had a diabetic ulcer on his right foot – and at the time was told the solution was to simply cut off his toes. The out-of-pocket private treatments have cost Littlewolf $3,000 as of January 2014, but the total over time would reach $20,000+, an amount that the government agency did not want to pay (“Not Just the VA”).

A.T. "Rusty" Stafne, chairman of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of northeast Montana's Fort Peck Indian Reservation, said an issue experienced within their reservation is the common use of treatments such as pain killers or cough medicine when those methods do not help nor cure the real causes of the health problems (AP News).

In 2005, Ta-Shon Rain Little Light, a 5 year-old Crow Indian, was taken to an IHS clinic when she had stopped eating because her stomach was hurting. The doctors there diagnosed her pain as depression and neglected to perform tests that would have recognized terminal cancer. Several months later when she was airlifted to a hospital in Denver because her health had deteriorated drastically, cancer was discovered and would have likely been treatable had it been found earlier (“Native Americans”).

Within the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, A.T. "Rusty" Stafne said that people have died because they could not get the healthcare they needed (AP News). Dr. Dee Althouse, a physician of the Chippewa Cree Band had to focus on saving lives and limbs, while other health problems were put on the back burner (Native Americans).

Terree P. Summers, an economist and author specializing in healthcare and the federal budget, was able to get first-hand information about IHS healthcare by way of her grandfather, who was an IHS physician. Summers witnessed the effects of government healthcare: rationing, lack of access, inferior care, and long waits – the type of poor care Native Americans are used to (“Not Just the VA”).

Native Nations Institute’s research reported that “tribal management leads to better access and better quality healthcare than relying on the IHS-run system” (“Native Americans”). Private healthcare run by individuals within tribes could lead to healthier lives for Native Americans if they had such an option – the simple freedom to allow Indians to open doctor’s offices, clinics, and hospitals on their reservations would see improvements in the quality of healthcare: “when hospitals and physicians compete for patients, they provide better care. Private sector healthcare provides higher-quality services” (Hollis). However, Indians cannot even own private property on their reservations (“Unlocking the Wealth”).

The lack of healthcare options is a huge problem that affects millions of Native Americans. The ongoing healthcare failure’s real issue has repeatedly been ignored. The excuses made by the US Commission on Civil Rights in 2004: lack of qualified people, lack of funding, maintenance of aging facilities, and retention and recruiting of qualified healthcare providers – are all effects of the problem, not causes (“Not Just the Va”).

In 2008, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act was proposed that would enable tribal members choices, including being able to purchase private insurance. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposed this bill that was shot down 28-67 (“Not Just the VA”). Now, Native Americans do have the option like everyone else to sign up for Obamacare; but they get the same effects of government-run healthcare: few choices, declining quality of medical care, long waits for healthcare services, picking and choosing who “really” needs the services (older people vs. younger people, for example), and increasing costs of premiums (“Obamacare Rationing”). Both the IHS and Obamacare are options for Native Americans that end with the same result: poor quality healthcare. “The problem is not one of spending; it is one of structure. Care provided to Native Americans is poor not merely because of IHS’ inadequate funding, but because tribal members have few other options” (Hollis). The solution to the problem is to allow Native Americans the freedom to have private healthcare – which has been proven to be the best possible type of healthcare available. “Where there is no competition, there is no accountability. And where there is no accountability, there is no assurance of quality” (Hollis).

Anderson, Terry. "Native Americans and the Public Option." Wall Street Journal (2009): 1. web. 13 January 2015.

—. "Unlocking the Wealth of Indian Nations." Townhall (2013): 1. Web. 20 January 2015.

AP News. "As Tribal Health Care Woes Mount, Feds Get Blame." Townhall (2014): 1. Web. 20 January 2015.

Hollis, Laura. "The Real Lessons from the VA Scandal." Townhall (2014): 1. web. 15 January 2015.

Summers, Terree P. "Not Just the VA." The Freeman 12 (2014): 1. web. 13 January 2015.

—. "Obamacare Rationing: It’s Already Here." The Freeman (2014): 1. Web. 20 January 2014.

The Kaiser Family Foundation. "Life Expectancy at Birth (in years), by Race/Ethnicity." 2010. web. 19 January 2015.

Delusional Statist Thinking: Nothing More than Babies Crying

The delusions that people are under that make our society less-free and government-dependent range from smoking laws to food stamps. Read the opinion of Lawrence W. Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education: http://fee.org/the_freeman/detail/27-government-must-have-the-power-to-make-people-take-better-care-of-themselves

Why Should We Not Want Welfare?

Most people would probably ask what is wrong with welfare. We've had it a long time ever since the 30's. Why not? It helps people.

Actually, in the long run, if you look closer, welfare does not help people. It actually hurts them.

First, welfare is an incentive not to work. This incentive increases every time the government increases the recipients' checks. This is just common sense: like if your grandmother gave you $5,000 this month and then increased the check to you next month to $5,500, you probably wouldn't want to work very much, and eventually not at all if the increases kept coming. The point is, the incentive to work fluctuates negatively as welfare increases. The incentives just keep piling up not to work as is evident by the truth that what many middle-class people earn today is less than what some people who have welfare receive. The result is that work is discouraged and relying on others is encouraged.

Flickr image by Internet Archive Book Images.

Since work is discouraged, productivity also falls. This argument is made clear by Richard Fulmer in his article in The Freeman: "As benefits and benefit recipients multiply, and as the number of taxpayers declines, the latter will be less and less able to bear the ever-growing burden. Many of the most productive and adaptable will move to countries that allow them to keep more of their earnings ... While productivity increases can help offset falling production due to a declining workforce, any such increase requires either capital investments or innovative process improvements. As previously explained, however, welfare states discourage capital formation by discouraging savings. Innovation is similarly discouraged by taxes that reduce or eliminate any profits that such innovation might generate." 

It is ironic that in a country such as the United States, that we should continue to support the idea of welfare when unemployment is such a hot topic and is at the top of the list of objectives to control by the government, as well as the constant cry of inequality among classes.

Not only does welfare hurt people, but it doesn't help the economy either. In his article "Paying the Unemployed Does Not Stimulate the Economy," in The Freeman, James C. W. Ahiakpor makes a valid argument: "Many in Congress as well as the President and some of his economic advisers have argued that extending the period for paying the unemployed will stimulate the U.S. economy out of its sluggish performance. Would any of them consider as valid an argument that giving money out of their own pockets to an unemployed member of their household would promote the financial prosperity of that household? Would they not correctly see such financial contribution as merely a transfer within the household? Would they also not be eager to nudge the unemployed to get up quickly and find a job? ... So why don’t they apply the same logic to the economy as a whole? The only tenable answer is that they are under the spell of the economic miseducation inflicted on the minds of economists and many among the general population by John Maynard Keynes. They believe that consumer spending drives the economy, without having stopped to consider from where consumers get the means to spend."

Welfare itself stems from a good intention, but it does not bring good outcomes in the end. Welfare means dependence, falling productivity, and as Bono of U2 aptly stated, "a Band-aid. Free enterprise is the cure." In other words, free enterprise brings more opportunity and a higher standard of living than any government can promise or give.

More Privatization by Schools Leads to Huge Savings

By using private firms to provide non-educational services, millions of dollars could be saved, according to the study just released by Troy University's Johnson Center for Political Economy. Link to story: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/09/millions_for_the_classroom_tro.html

The Welfare Cliff

Of course people should be concerned about the world's poverty-stricken people. It is a worthwhile cause to fight for: reduce the poverty in our world, fight hunger, see that everyone has clean water, etc. Being concerned about the "welfare" of others is only natural however selfish we are. 

Some people today seem to think that the world's poverty should be dealt with by the government because it is their responsibility. 

Flickr image by Ben Phelps-Rohrs

But to say such a thing as that, is to say that it is my responsibility, my family's responsibility, and everyone else paying taxes in the United States to give to the less fortunate or the poverty-stricken. Responsibility. 

It is my belief that, being a Christian, I should help others. 

It is not the help itself that I have a problem with. It is where the help is coming from. 

My opinion is that of the French economist Fredric Bastiat, whom I will quote from his fantastic book The Law.

"You say: 'There are persons who have no money,' and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only if it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder. 

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice."

The Welfare State in one way or another, through taxes or borrowing, is paid for by the public. So when people think that they are getting something from the government for nothing, think again. Think about all those people, including those who receive welfare benefits (who pay for certain taxed products), who are plundered by each other. Independent (welfare-free) citizens who are paying heavy taxes to provide for the welfare of others when they could be giving so much more to society through their productiveness. At the same time, welfare recipients are being plundered by independent citizens because these poverty-stricken people could be so much better off. So it's plundering of plunderers. 

I will in my next post give my opinion on how to help the poverty-stricken, and to forewarn: it does not involve government assistance that is supposedly "owed" to its citizens.