Prayer for the slain at Virginia Tech

After 35 died in the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, Australia passed gun reform laws. Port Arthur was the thirteenth mass shooting in eighteen years. There have been none in the eleven years since.

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

I bring this quote up first in regards to the guns debate. To be honest with you, banning guns in the United States today or tomorrow would do more harm than good. First, you take away government regulation and oversight of guns. Second, you are creating a black market for gun smuggling. (Think how lawful prohibition was, and apply that to this situation. It would be bad, real bad). Third, by banning guns, you are not solving the problem, you are just tinkering with an option that could be used. Other instruments of violence are still readily available, and that includes the black-market for guns that would develop if guns were banned.

The real problem here is how popular culture and society views life. Today, popular culture, for the most part, demeans and mocks the individual, and devalues human life. Throw in the fact that many people are emotionally insecure and mentally unstable on top of the culture the celebrates destruction, and this is what you get.

My prayers are with those who lost their lives and their families. This, however, will not be the last such tragedy. Actually, I am surprised that it took this long for something like this to occur. I figured that within a year or two of Columbine, which, by the way also happened 8 years ago this week, this type of bloodshed would hit college campuses. Maybe 9/11 slowed it down. Who knows.

Another area of concern is sporting events. It is only a matter of time before someone 1. goes postal at a stadium, be it for a college or pro event, 2. straps himself with a bomb and blows himself up, along with others near him at a sporting event, 3. uses some sort of chemcial weapon at a stadium, or 4. pilots a small plane into a crowded stadium.

Again, pre-Port Arthur—13 mass shootings in 18 years. Post-Port Arthur—0 mass shootings in 11 years.

This didn't get much play in the mass media (what a surprise) last week, but Tony Blair made some quite provocative comments. Addressing the increase in crime and violence in London, Blair place blame for this on "black culture." Now, I would not use the term "black culture" like Blair did, but I would agree with him that the gangsta, punk, lie, screw and cheat culture that is the center of popluar culture in the United States these days are to blame for the increase in crime and violence(looks like this is also beginning to hit England, based on Blair's comments).

The sad thing is, nothing will be done about this in the near future. We must first go lower and hit rock bottom before people will say enough is enough. This is because 1. people in power (entertainment industry and media in general) are making mad $$ and don't feel like changing a thing, 2. politicians are afraid to speak up because a. we are trying to live in a guilt free society, so b. to speak up means to place blame, which results in c. folks spending money against you and running against you and d. that means you are soon to be out of elected office.

Gun laws may have prevented what happened at Va Tech, but its not the answer to stop all violence. Alex you know that, you can open any English or Irish history book and read what happened during the Terrors in England. The same kid who shot 31 people in BLacksburg had just called in 2 bomb threats the week before.

This, however, is the real world. The first shooting occurred at 7:15 am. Police immediately respond. The first order of business is to secure the immediate area, get help for the victims, and then start investigating. The fact that information about the shooting was released two hours after the incident is reasonable.

Now, some are arguing that information should have been released earlier. Well, what exactly should have been released. There was a shooting and ??? Remember, simply reporting something may also have negative impacts - such as causing fear and panic. There are times when it is better to get the facts straight and then make a public announcement. Sure, we live in a world of 24 hour news channels, and people tend to forget that above mention rule when reporting events.

As far as a lock down - are you kidding me? I grew up in Philadelphia. I went to and graduated from Penn, in the heart of West Philly. There is a shooting in Philadelphia nearly every hour, and a murder every day. Does the city "lock down" every time a shooting or murder occurs.

And another thing - does anyone else think it is strange that people are calling for campuses o lock down? Are students prisoners now?

As far as the two hours, it seems appropriate. Shooting occurs, police are called, police respond, crime site is secured, victims are treated, investigation begins. This takes time.

The blame also goes to the University for failure to aknowledge a problem.

Read what he wrote:

WARNING: the plays contain profanity and scenes with disturbing content.

1. McBeef
2. Mr. Brownstone

That being said, Va Tech can be blamed for a lot of things, ruining my dreams as a UVA fan, having the most vocal alumni base in Virginia, but its not the schools fault for what happened on Monday. People must remember, that a school like Va Tech with 26000 students is like a small town. Matter of fact it basically is the population of Blacksburg. Three weeks from now when the semister lets out that downs population drops to like 10000 people. My point is, its difficult to make a broad sweeping announcement across an entire community. Its not like Va Tech is a High School that has a loudspeaker system in every room. There was a 2 hour lag in the shootings, but when that guy left the dorms I gurantee that no one had a clue he was heading across campus to launch an assault on a classroom.

I have been around guns all of my life. My dad is still a police detective (in Philly). I am an Eagle Scout. I have fired guns and rifles in the past, and will do so in the future. I have, however, a great deal of respect for what a gun can do and what damage it can inflict.

But I'm not sure that is the same thing. Violence escalated around Prohibition because people wanted their alcohol. I don't see the same thing happening in regards to gun control. Violence escalates because people want guns? They don't have the guns to commit the violence. I think your case calls for a leap to some degree.

Now, you are telling me that he would not discover a black-market source for a gun. I think, he would. And even if he did not, he would find another means to do a mass murder. Instead of a gun, he could just head to the local Wal-Mart to buy household cleaners and chemicals, and either make a bomb or a chemical weapon. You know that the recipe for such things are available over the Net.

But that isn't the same thing. You are correct about the guns already out there. What Australia did was have a government run buy back program. Not everyone turned their gun in, but many did, taking all of those guns out of circulation and off the streets.

'Any person referred for a mental/emotional condition or violent tendencies shall not be allowed to purchase a gun.'

I know, your reply will likely be to give mental / emotional tests to individuals who want to buy guns. However, those exams will be made public, and you can easily circumvent them (i.e. - give false answers).

I do not agree that we cannot change society. Society is a creation of mankind. If we created it, we can change it. It won't be easy, but it is possible.

Yes, it is true, that he was unstable. However, unless you want to permit the government to obtain all counseling records a person has, it would never come up.

2001: 5.6 2002: 5.6 2003: 5.7 2004: 5.5 2005: 5.6

FBI data runs out in 2005. NY and Philly's rates have exploded recently, which may or may not be statistically significant.

But how do we fight poverty? I would suggest things such as universal health care, raising minimum wage and fixing the tax code, but these things tend to be opposed by people who are also against gun control.

Universal healthcare sounds great, but a single, gov't sponsored plan will not solve the problems. It would only make things worse. Personally, the best way to solve the health care mess is to move health care from an employee benefit to one that is controlled by the individual (in a similar fashion as car insurance). Have the states regulate the health insurance industry thereafter, and have the state, and to a lesser degree, the fed gov't provide subsidies for the working poor to obtain health insurance thru private firms. (Those in poverty would still be on Medicaid.)

Min Wage Increase - those who receive the most from such an increase are white kids. Earned Income Credit has a greater impact on the poor than a min wage increase.

However, the gov't will not be able to change the cycle of poverty and lack of value associated with an education that is found among those living in poverty. Simply put, a faceless bureaucracy will not solve this problem.

Like I said, those working on min wage are mostly white kids working part-time during the school year or summer. You are not going to effect the poor by increasing the min wage.

As far as universal healthcare, universal healthcare will not control the costs involved with the healthcare. Actually, by making a single gov't program and eliminating private insurance, you take away competition that drives efficiency and cost-reductions. So, in the end, everyone may have "healthcare", but the costs associated will be drastically higher. And to pay for that, either taxes will be increases, or the deficit will explode.

Now as far as you saying that the rich are not paying taxes, I disagree. For example, the Top 1% of earners, which begins at $328,000 (adjusted gross income) and is 19% of all income earned, pays 36.9% of the total tax burden in the US.

Expanding to the Top 5%, that includes anyone making $137,000 AGI or above. 33% of all income earned is included here. These folks pay 57% of the total tax burden.

Expanding further to the Top 10%, which includes anyone making $99,100 AGI or more, this group accounts for 44% of all income earned in the US. This groups pays 68% of total US tax burden.

Now for the bottom 50% of income earners, they are responsible for 3.3% of total US tax burden.

The argument over the rich not paying taxes is just political fodder. In reality, it is simply not true.

Having taken a federal income tax class in law school, I can honestly tell you that the rich are not benefiting from tax breaks. You may argue that their max tax rate is too low, but, tax breaks, they do not exist. Tax breaks are geared to the middle class, actually, are geared toward the swing voters in elections. Those tax breaks tend to decrease and be eliminated as income crosses the $200+ threshold.