December 26, 2012 – RI Future

For a site with such an optimistic name, it’s funny how you can always count on Anchor Rising to pounce on anything that can be spun to reflect poorly on the state of Rhode Island. No, the glass is not half full according to that other blog; it’s defective, leaking, and surely the fault of a public employee somewhere.

The latest example of this comes from Justin, Rhody’s littlest think tanker and a guy who truly puts the “dismal” in the dismal science. What’s got Justin so concerned this time is Rhode Island’s ranking in the “Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity”:

If we accept the proposition that a struggling economy leads more people to start their own businesses in order to generate their own income, then Rhode Island’s position on the Kauffman Index’s ranking is worrisome. The Ocean State ought to be highly entrepreneurial, because its employment situation is so bad. The other two states with unemployment rates above 10% are near the top of the entrepreneurialism list.

Rhode Island is tenth from the bottom.

Fair enough, and for the fringe-right that’s more than enough to begin wailing that the sky is falling. But what Justin doesn’t tell you, is that there are big regional differences between the states and that the index slants heavily towards those states with large construction sectors, an immediate disadvantage to densely populated states like RI.

But the larger point here is an obvious one: not all states start at the same place! In fact, Rhode Island has shown incredible growth in the amount of entrepreneurial activity. RI saw an increase of 71% in the past decade (comparing 1999–2001 to 2009–2011)! That’s 49 percent more than the national average and 5th nationally, behind only Nevada, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Georgia for growth in entrepreneurialism. Another decade of “underperformance” like that and Rhode Island would be in the top 10. Of course that little tidbit must go unmentioned because it doesn’t fit neatly into Justin’s “everything here sucks” worldview.

Look, it’s dangerous to read too much into these state to state comparisons, especially when drawing conclusions about a state this size. My take, take these studies with a healthy grain of salt… and ignore the fringe-right’s dismal science entirely.

We all need to realize that allowing people to purchase and own AR-15s is just as much social engineering as not allowing them. Either way creates a certain sort of society, which is pretty much the definition of social engineering.

The problem is not pro-gun per se. The problem is that the current manifestation of the pro-gun position is absolutist. They will not even allow the most common-sensical of restrictions. In their current view, any restrictions at all are intolerable.

That sort of absolutism is foolish. No right is absolute. Freedom of speech can be restricted in certain circumstances. And that is the first amendment, which probably indicates it’s the one deemed most necessary by the authors.

What does a” well-regulated militia” imply? That the militia should be regulated. Which means restricted. And restrictions = laws restricting ownership of guns in certain circumstances. That’s what the Second Amendment states. Yes, the Supreme Court recently ruled that this guarantees the rights of individuals to own guns. But the Supreme Court also ruled that “separate but equal” was perfectly fine, and that fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owners even if that meant forcible removal from a free state (i.e., Dred Scott).

The fact is, in states like RI, you are more apt to be shot by a stranger. In a state with very liberal gun laws like TX or LA (the latter leading the US in gun deaths, btw) you are more apt to be shot by someone you know. Since one generally spends more time among people you know, your chance of being shot goes up when you are surrounded by gun owners.

That’s pretty straightforward. Also, gun owners are 4.5 more times likely to be shot, and 4.2 times more likely to be killed by a gun than a non-owner.

The sum of these two facts means that guns do not make you safer. Rather the opposite, in fact.

In addition, allowing the ownership of assault-style weapons and large capacity magazines increases the odds that a shooter will kill more people in a rampage. So why allow them? Give the kid in Newtown a revolver or even two instead of an assault-style weapon, and suddenly, the ability to kill 26 people plummets.

Yes, there are bad people out there. Yes, they have guns. Why do they have guns? Because they’re easy to get. Background checks can be circumvented easily. One can buy most anything at a gun show. The guy who just set the fire and shot the two fire fighters was a felon, who should not have been able to own a gun. Yet, he had (or got) one. How did he do that? Because guns are easy to get. Why are they easy to get? Because the pro-gun lobby refuses to consider even the slightest of restrictions.

Look, I grew up with guns, in a time and a place where not having guns in the house was the aberration. I understand their legitimate uses. Which means I understand their non-legitimate uses as well. Being able to pump out 50 rounds of high-velocity bullets is not a legitimate use for anyone who is not in the military, or in certain cases for the police.

Let someone own their semi-automatic pistol. Fine. If it makes him feel safer, even though the evidence points in the other direction, fine. It’s the SUV fallacy: just because it feels safer doesn’t mean it is.

But let’s also face facts: too much of gun ownership is not about ‘safety’; it’s about being macho. I trust everyone has seen this ad by now, but just in case…

http://letfreedomrain.blogspot.com/2012/12/bushmaster-ad-consider-your-man-card.html

When I first saw this, I thought it might be a liberal mock-up. Turns out it’s real.

Excuse me, I have to go puke.

Day: December 26, 2012

Anchor Sinking: The Dismal Science of the Right

A Brief Word On Guns