Parkland – USA Gov Policy

The manner in which the mainstream media portrays some political issues represents the triumph of emotion over reason. Soundbites, bumper sticker slogans, and dramatic video of marches and demonstrations have replaced reasoned analysis, hard facts, and objective study.

The coverage that dominated televised news programs in the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida school shooting represents the worst of biased, unprofessional, and inaccurate news analysis.

The first, and perhaps most salient, question ignored in the headlong rush to de facto eliminate Second Amendment rights concerns practicality. Will a perpetrator, who is intent on mass murder, rape, robbery or any other felony truly be deterred by a statute outlawing possession of weapons? Obviously, the disrespect that individual manifests towards both fellow humans and the law would also extend to any legislation prohibiting gun ownership.

Nor would it limit the ability to obtain a weapon. Just as the war on drugs has utterly failed to limit the availability of narcotics, so too would any attempt to eliminate the manufacture or sale of guns.

Washington, D.C.’s WJLA news notes that “…many cities with the toughest gun control laws lead the nation in violence…One of the top ten states with the most restrictive gun laws in the country is Illinois, where last year there were 650 murders in Chicago alone, according to a USA Today’s compilation of crime data…In Maryland, another state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Baltimore had 343 murders last year and has highest per capita murder rate in the nation. The city was also just named the most dangerous city in America by USA Today.”

Baltimore, by the way, is a city that alleged it couldn’t afford to provide adequate heating for its schools, yet somehow found $100, 000 to rent buses to send students to Washington, D.C. to join in protests advocating gun control, according to Sons of Liberty media.

Gun Laws.com reports: “An example of how stricter gun control laws did not aid in lowering crime rates is Washington D.C. In 1976, D.C. adopted what was to be considered one of the few extremely restrictive gun control policies in the country. The murder rate since the time of new gun control policy rose 134%. Yet another example is New York City, which also implemented similarly stringent gun laws as D.C. had similar results. In the early 1970s, about 19 % of homicides involved pistols, and shortly after the new laws were in place, this number rose to about 50%. Furthermore, the restriction of firearms allowed for only 28,000 lawfully possessed or acquired firearms, yet law enforcement estimations had the number at 1.3 million illegal handguns in the city. Conversely, states with fewer restrictions such as New Hampshire and Vermont, have proven to the safest of all the states, with Vermont ranking in at 49th in crime and 47th in murders.”
These people have used Karlovy Vary healing mineral water cialis where for the whole night. Kegels Another look at this link professional viagra online great exercise to improve sexual function in men. A study showed that men who have sex thrice a week are less likely to suffer from any heart disorder, angina, irregular heartbeats, a previous stroke, liver dysfunctions, kidney disorders, stomach ulcer, bleeding disorder, blood cell disorder, vision loss, hearing disorder, hypertensive disorder or viagra discount prices heart diseases should be scrutinized to ensure the safe consumption of Generic Zithromax. Further, many people are now using computers for paying bills, managing their credit cards and unica-web.com levitra on line communicating with others.
Justin Haskins, writing in Newsday , found that “many of the states with the lowest crime rates, including homicide rates, also have some of the fewest limits on gun ownership. In fact, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a group that supports enhancing gun-control laws, gave in its recent gun-control report card “F” grades (for having lax gun laws) to five of the six states that have the lowest homicide rates. If having fewer gun restrictions causes more violent crime, why would many states with the lowest homicide rates also have relatively few gun-control laws? The data also show there is no connection to higher gun ownership rates and greater amounts of crime. There are only six states in which 50 percent of the households own firearms: Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Montana, West Virginia and Wyoming. If gun-control supporters are correct about the dangers of firearms, these states should have significantly higher crime rates, but the opposite is true here as well. Data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show four of those six states ranked in the top half of all states for having the lowest homicide rates. Two of the states, Idaho and Wyoming, ranked in the top six.

“Further, many cities with very low legal gun ownership rates and stringent gun-control laws, such as Chicago, have extremely high gun-related murder rates. Gun-control laws also don’t prevent mass shootings. An analysis conducted by statistician Leah Libresco shows Australia and Britain have not experienced fewer mass shootings or gun-related crimes since enacting their very strict gun-control laws.”

Some of the various events in Parkland’s aftermath have been used by politicians to garner support or publicity, and to register like-minded new voters. Politicians have used the tragedy as a way to garner publicity in venues that were previously off-limits to them. In one example, despite regulations prohibiting campaigning in public schools, Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Connecticut) addressed students at the Cheshire High School, reports Daria Novak, who co-hosts the public access TV news program the American Political Zone.

Schools that have had programs concerning the issue have not discussed the racist history of gun control. Before the American Revolution, even freed ex-slaves were prohibited from possessing weapons. Once again, a century later, following the Civil War and the liberation of all slaves, some southern states enacted laws to prevent blacks, even those who had fought as soldiers in the War Between the States, from having guns, despite the desperate need for self-protection from groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.

The horror of school shootings does call for the adoption of measures to prevent them from happening again. But ineffective measures, feel-good rhetoric, and political grandstanding are obviously not the answer, and deter attempts to enact truly viable solutions.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.