The Occupy movement.

Their movement has died but better late then never. If this doesn't interest you other subjects posted below.

As the ‘Occupiers,’ protest, ‘elitist suppression’ in the very nation that invented classless society and upward mobility, it should be noted that even a purely material appraisal of America’s fruit basket offers ample evidence to the capitalist blessings we enjoy.   Ironically, those shouting Bolshevik slogans and wearing Mao Tse Tung t-shirts (as they defecate on police cars and lob urine bottles at uniformed officers who would be instructed to kill them with impunity in any of the totalitarian states they seem so eager to promote) are ignoring the truth that the bank bailouts they hate so much were a non-solution rooted not in capitalism, but squarely in the soil of the communist ideology they seek to empower.  ‘Too Big to Fail,’ is purest socialism adopted by people enriched beyond words by the very capitalism now being defiled by those too ignorant of history to recognize the difference.  The American Dream is not dead.  It is being short-circuited by mental manipulation and propagandized devolution willingly adopted by a lazy society. [1]

self explanatory.

They have no real answer for what they stand for. 

You could look this up, they say "I don't know" or "anti-obama" or "destroy wallsteet" or even " it just seems like a good idea"

A good reason why the occupy protests should be ignored. 

Occupy protests lack common/coherent message "Occupy protests need to focus on coherent demands." Student Life Staff Editorial. October 17th, 2011: "The protests have been linked and compared to the tea party movement, due to their similar grassroots nature and extreme ideological stances. However, the tea party does have a centralized message, which the "Occupy" protests lack. The tea party is about reducing taxes and cutting spending to make government smaller. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the tea party's stances, it is possible to know what the entire group and all of its smaller subsidiaries are about. We believe the "Occupy" protests need to do the same thing. Define and convey their message correctly, and stick to reasonable demands that resonate with the rest of the American public. Most of the country has been seriously hurt by the financial crisis, and most of the American public wants to focus on creating a more equal and fair country. There is a lot of room for the "Occupy" protests to grow, but without a consistent message, most Americans will be turned off." [2]

That is that. 

Also there are 5 reasons why the movement won't work:

Its Goals Are Unclear

Any protest that hopes to accomplish some goal needs, well, a goal. If a demonstration like this lacks concrete objectives, then its purpose will be limited at best and nonexistent at worst. At this time, all the protest really appears to stand for is a general dislike of Wall Street. But what does that mean? [3]

Wall Street Doesn't Care

They will to continue to fund DEMOCRATS and keep doing what they do.  Now I made a controversial statement, time to prove the democrat statement. 
 http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/20/obamas-raised-more-money-for-democrats-from-wall-street-donors-than-all-republican-candidates-combined/

go there if you don't believe me.  


The Protesters Can't Sway Congress
The Tea Party accomplished something very key: it helped to significantly alter the makeup of Congress through the 2010 election. It had a goal -- to put out of power the big government candidates -- and it accomplished that goal. The Occupy Wall Street cannot hope for any result as significant.
As mentioned, it doesn't have a clear set of objectives. But let's say, for argument's sake, that it has some general fringe-left goals. Some that have been suggested include new taxes on Wall Street and much stronger financial regulation. The problem is that these views aren't likely to catch on in Congress: even when the mix was much further to the left in 2009 through 2010, a relatively mild financial regulation bill was passed and even the Bush tax cuts remained intact.
The reality is that the U.S. is a center-right nation, and Congress reflects that. While some cities are farther to the left than others, they already have very progressive representatives. Meanwhile, the message of Occupy Wall Street isn't likely to catch on and affect any change in more center-right regions like the Tea Party did.[3]

Their Timing Is Off
Even if the U.S. were to embrace the message of these protests, Congress would not act. The bailouts were hugely unpopular with voters, but they occurred anyway. That's because there are times when Washington just needs to be practical. When unemployment is stuck above 9% is such a time.
  [3]


Banking is a Vital Institution -- Especially to the U.S.
Hating banks is counterproductive. You simply can't live without banks in a modern, sophisticated economy. Wall Street investment firms are equally essential. Capital markets and debt markets allow businesses to function smoothly. Without them, growth and progress would be much slower. [3]




 Also they are for wealth distribution (hey at least they have one goal). 

 The transfer of earned wealth that socialist policies mandate are a detriment to entrepreneurship and innovation. Entrepreneurship and innovation are driven by the potential for material rewards. If we take away or reduce the material rewards, we’ll have less innovation. Less innovation means less of all the cool, useful, and life-saving stuff we all love. [5]

world GDP in 2010: $74.54 trillion 

Population 2011 july: 6,928,198,253

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html

$ 10, 758.93 per person.

Thats nothing. wealth distribution fails.

Well that's is, the occupy movement sucks.

sources:

http://www.rightsidesd.com/?p=6455 [1]

Student Life Staff Editorial. October 17th, 2011 [2]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/5-reasons-why-occupy-wall-street-wont-work/246041/ [3]

http://socialismdoesntwork.com/why-socialism-doesnt-work/ [5]

Socialism vs capatilism

You could guess my position If you have seen m former posts, I will choose against socialism.

socialism:

State control of the economy

capitalism:

Free markets

Why socialism is a failure:



Frankly, it is socialist economics, though you can try to paper over that fact all that you want.
When a government intervenes in a market, it upsets the dynamics of a market and forces inefficiencies. In fact, I would strongly argue that government is responsible for the high health care costs today. [1]

(health care industry is a good example)

As soon as you get government involved, there are mandates of what plans have to include, it increases prices and consolidates supply. That is bad for the consumers of health care. [1]

Same applies to other industries

Not only that, but the government would require taxes to fund such programs. Lets think about that word. It has two meanings which are very closely related. On one hand, it means a government forcibly taking money from an entity. At the same time, it means to place an undue burden on an activity which ultimately limits it. In fact, taxation reduces your economic freedom, placing an undue burden on your ability to prosper while a parasitic government leeches from you. Time and time again has shown that a reduction in tax rates will stimulate the economy and a production of more revenue. [1]

So socialism raises taxes, ruins industry, and forces you to buy products. 


The solution for the 21st century isn’t more government interference in your life and less freedom, it is less government interference and more freedom. [1]



Socialism is bad because it is condescending, inefficient, and immoral.

Although it sounds appealing on paper, it just doesn't work in practice. for one big reason, brain drain. 

In a socialist society smart people won't get rewarded for their efforts, they get the same pay as the cashier. So they move to places where they can get more money, so the smart people leave. Dumb people go to the socialist areas because they earn more there then they can in America. So in socialist states, smart people leave, dumb people enter. Hence, brain drain.

 Socialism is bad because it is condescending. Socialism takes away the liberty to decide how you wish to spend your money.

 Socialism is inefficient because it makes economic calculation impossible. Although you can predict it well, how it's gonna end up in 30 years is harder to do.

Socialism is immoral because it takes the smart people's success and gives it to the poor, which sounds great, but this causes brain drain. As stated above.

Now this is a lets compare DP wealth per capita
USA = 46,860
vs
China = 7,544

Uk (economically capatilist, not socialy) = 35,059
vs
laos = 2,449

Source: international monetary fund (in US $)

So in capitalist countries you make more money, socialism = less money.



History: 

Its sad, socialism was the most common system historically, sadly it doesn't work. The USSR, 3rd world country other than their military, then collapsed. Vietnam, socialistic, collapsed into semi-socialism, still struggling. China, where struggling, passed CAPITALIST reform allowing entrepreneurship. Without that capitalist reform they would still be struggling, socialism failed there, they fixed it with a little capitalism. Greece, semi socialist, look what's happening to them. Look at history, history repeats itself. And if that's true then socialism always fails.


“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” –Karl Marx

“…I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” –Barack Hussein Obama to Joe the Plumber


Both quotes call for the redistribution of wealth. Both quotes talk about who needs to give the wealth and who needs to get it. However, neither quote addresses the most important questions: Who gets the wealth ? Why do they deserve it ? [2]

So tell me: Why does Subject A have to pay for B, C, or D’s crap ? Why does A owe B,C, or D anything ? [2]

So hard working person a, rich, should he give his money to B or C, or even welfare D? if he chooses to, but under socialism it is forced.  Capitalism lets you choose, socialism just forces you. Also either way, why do they deserve A's money?

There are no answers to any of the questions that socialism brings up. Yes, we must love our neighbor as the Bible commands, but “love thy neighbor” does not mean “support thy neigbor while he sips a margarita on a hammock while you work yourself into an early grave.” Ethically, as a society, we have a responsibility to care for those who TRULY can not care for themselves, (wounded veterans, children, the very elderly, the infirm, etc.) but we have no responsibility to those who refuse to do so, like Subjects B, C, D. That’s why socialism sucks. It can’t answer the most basic of questions: Why
[2]


Well I have proven that socialism is bad. Time for capitalism:

The Glass-Steagall Act was created in 1933 in response to the Great Depression and gets its name from the two main sponsors of the legislation. Senator Carter Glass, a former Treasury secretary and the founder of the Federal Reserve System, and Henry Steagall, a House of Representatives member and chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, drafted and pushed to have this legislation passed. It created a separation of commercial banking and investment banking, by not allowing financial institutions to do both. Once enacted financial institutions had a year to decide if they were going to be one or the other. In the fallout of the Great Depression it was determined by many that large commercial banks became too greedy and speculative, and this act sought to tightly curb and control the activity of banks and investments by separating them, only allowing 10% of a commercial bank’s revenue to come from securities. Many in the financial industry saw this as too harsh a judgment, and Glass himself sought to repeal the act shortly after it’s passage claiming it was an overreaction to the crisis. [3]

Good example why governments should get out of business.

Overall, capitalism is good. The wealth and relative high standard of living we all enjoy in this nation is evidence of that. There is nothing wrong with big business, big money, and big banks. They have enabled our country to prevail in times of war and threat. Pure grit and determination alone didn’t enable us to simultaneously defeat the Nazis and the Japanese in World War II. Both were very savvy, with well planed tactics and engineering. The simple truth is we out spent them, and out produced them. We cranked ships out faster than the German U boats could sink them. After Pearl Harbor we rebuilt and rearmed our Pacific fleet in record time. Technology that was outdated for us at the beginning of the War quickly became state of the art, far surpassing the abilities of our enemies’. We had a ton of production capability with a big checkbook to throw at the effort.
In the 1980s it was capitalism that defeated the Soviet Union. Yes Ronald Reagan had a high budget for defense, but it was still a fraction of our budget and very manageable. However, the Soviet Union had to spend a ridiculous percentage of it’s GNP in an attempt to just keep pace. They couldn’t do it because they weren’t capitalists. It broke them down, forcing a collapse. Their population started demanding certain things from their government, and became more and more discontent with their standard of living.  How is that for a war? Not a single shot fired! Zero troops mobilized! All capitalism and big money. Don’t mess with a good thing. Money keeps a nation strong, people fed, and a military at the ready. [3]

Yep.

Let's look at history here:

1. Help lead to the industrial revolution, a huge economic growth time. Production increased end unemployment hit almost zero.
2. Heavy mental was created by capitalism due to the industrial age and other research projects that wouldn't have happened under socialism.
3. America is the richest country in the world
4. Capitalism creates freedom
5. Created ou rights
6. you should thank capitalism for everything you have earned. History repeats itself, then stick with this system, and all of these will multiply.


The prevailing interest among humans in this world is self-interest. Anti-capitalists call it greed. Religion calls it sin. Science calls it survival. In fact, few philosophies refer to self interest in itself as something good, but it is inescapable. You cannot educate people out of self-interest. It is the natural order of human behavior and the only way to tame this beast is to work with it. Dr. Walter E. Williams describes how capitalism works with self-interest: [4]

"Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man." ²

Don't take this as an argument that capitalism is perfect or produces perfect results. Far from it. However, capitalism is the closest thing to a perfect economic system we will ever see on this earth. [4]


Capitalism is the only economic system in the world that promotes voluntary excellence in individuals. Individuals are rewarded based on the amount of value they provide to the market. Capitalism provides incentives to be great and invent things that were never thought possible. It is a system that promotes growth among individuals and society as a whole. [4]

Some people call this greed, yes IT IS, I WILL NOT DENY. But, what do humans want most? Money. Capitalism gives them that incentive, socialism doesn't. Without incentive, nothing will work as well. Money=work hard make things. No money=lazy. So socialism promotes lazyness because the people see that there is no benifit. Capitalism says "hey we have incentives" and the people say "If we work we get money! Yay lets work".

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interests." -Adam Smith


So economically socialism sucks, capitalism rocks. Also if you look above which one sounds better? Support capitalism, support the economy, support money, support freedom. Socialism isn't good in practice, only on paper. Capitalism is good on both. This concludes.




sources:
http://www.rochesterconservative.com/blog/economics-101-or-why-socialism-is-bad/ [1]
http://www.redstate.com/absolutelynobama/2011/03/05/why-socialism-sucks/ [2]
http://www.zimbio.com/U.S.+Economy/articles/22/Capitalism+Good+Leave+Alone [3]
http://conservativeeconomics.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-capitalism-is-best-economics-system.html [4]






 

Abortion

This is pro-life, scroll down to see the other topics if this doesn't appeal.

Abortion: A termination of a pregnancy by removal of the fetus or embryo

1. A fetus is a human, therefor Abortion is MURDER/an unmoral killing

A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt. [1]

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte.  From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species).  Non-living things do not do these things.  Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her. [1]

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human.  A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens.  Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg).  When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing.  Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not.  Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception. [1]

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.  Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.^”  Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece

This can be found in my first source. 

Since a fetus has been proven to be human as shown above, then abortion is murder and it is taking away the babies rights. Also just because it is growing and changing doesn't mean its not a human, humans are ALWAYS changing, puberty, middle age, and other changes. So if you say that a fetus isn't human because of that reason, then none of us are either. So, a fetus is a human, and killing it is a unmoral killing and should be considered murder. 

2. Religion

This is a fact. Religion prohibits abortion. "thou shall not murder"

Also it claims life at conception, and since it claims this then an abortion is murder. 

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." exodus 21:22-23

So one who does the abortion will be punished. More info at my 2 source, this quote was from there. 

3. More people are pro-life than pro-choice

4. Fetuses can feel pain

by 20 weeks fetuses can feel pain.

Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain."

5. when legal backstreet abortions increase

peaking before the 93rd Congress of the US, Senator James Buckley stated: "Data from foreign countries having far longer experience with legalized abortion than we have had in the US, suggest that legalization has no effect on the criminal abortion rate. In at least three countries, the criminal abortion rate has actually risen since legalization. Legalized abortion moves the back alley abortionists into the front office where their trade can be practiced without fear of criminal prosecution." [3]

Dr Christopher Tietze, an abortion advocate, concedes: "Although one of the major goals of the liberalization of abortion laws in Scandinavia was to reduce the incidence of illegal abortion, this was not accomplished. Rather as we know from a variety of sources, both criminal and total abortions increased." [3]

here's the best conclusion:

The Republican Party wrote the following position in its "2008 Republican Party Platform," published in 2008 on its website www.gop.com:

"At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives...

We lament that judges have denied the people their right to set abortion policies in the states... We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life..."

http://prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm [1]

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/prolife.html [2]

Gallup polls

http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles/10rguments.htm [3]

A flat tax

This has become a huge issue in this election cycle, and the two tax ideologies entering the battle in this 2012 election is the flat tax, and the progressive tax. Here are the proposals so far on wither side:

Herman Cain (drop out)-999 plan. It is a great flat tax system
Rick Perry-20% flat tax
vs.
Obama tax plan: same thing as what we have now but higher taxes.
Romney tax reduction: same as we have now but lower taxes.

Those 4 plans are what we hear the most of today. Now let's define the 2 types of tax:

 A single tax rate that applies to everyone obligated to pay the tax.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flat+tax


A tax that takes a higher proportion of large incomes than of small ones.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive+tax

By looking at the definitions a progressive tax sounds more fair, but that is false. Now I will begin the biassed phase, a flat tax trumps a progressive one. 

Our tax system is broke, and I do not see how one can argue against that. Who want to go through 80,000 pages of legislation that have many loopholes and such. So one of the ways we can fis this so with a flat tax. 

A Single Flat Rate. All flat tax proposals have a single rate, usually less than 20 percent. The low, flat rate solves the problem of high marginal tax rates by reducing penalties against productive behavior, such as work, risk taking, and entrepreneurship. [1]

Elimination of Special Preferences. Flat tax proposals would eliminate provisions of the tax code that bestow preferential tax treatment on certain behaviors and activities. Getting rid of deductions, credits, exemptions, and other loopholes also helps solve the problem of complexity, allowing taxpayers to file their tax returns on a postcard-sized form. [1]

No Double Taxation of Saving and Investment. Flat tax proposals would eliminate the tax code's bias against capital formation by ending the double taxation of income that is saved and invested. This means no death tax, no capital gains tax, no double taxation of saving, and no double tax on dividends. By taxing income only one time, a flat tax is easier to enforce and more conducive to job creation and capital formation. [1]

Territorial Taxation. Flat tax proposals are based on the commonsense notion of "territorial taxation," meaning that governments should tax only income that is earned inside national borders. By getting rid of "worldwide taxation," a flat tax enables U.S. taxpayers and companies to compete on a level playing field around the world. [1]

Family-Friendly. All flat tax proposals have one "loophole." Households receive a generous exemption based on family size. For instance, a family of four would not begin to pay tax until its annual income reached more than $30,000 [1]

Consumption-Based. A tax code that does not discriminate against saving and investment is considered a consumption-based tax system, regardless of whether taxes are deducted from the paycheck or collected at the cash register. In this respect, a flat tax is a type of consumption tax. The difference between a flat tax and a national sales tax is where the tax is collected. A flat tax is levied on income-but only once and at one low rate-as it is earned. A sales tax is levied on income-but only once and at one low rate-as it is spent. [1]

Those are the benefits of a flat tax. It is fair and simple. I will now show you it from an economists point of view. 

On the private side, a flat tax reduces the distortions that otherwise arise when two individuals receive different after-tax returns on their labor or investment. The flat tax also eliminates private incentives to concoct wasteful schemes to shift their income onto the ledger of their poorer relatives. [2]

On the public side, the flat tax limits political discretion by making it harder for the government to single out "the rich" for special treatment. It also crimps government spending by denying any group the luxury of supporting government expenditures entirely at someone else's expense. [2]

I find this amusing because the liberals say that a flat tax favors the rich, yet this says opposite actually making it harder for wealthy people to get benefits. So a large portion of their argument, killed. 

Now lest talk about the Obama plan, same perspective: 

His pledge: The median voter need not pay one dime in higher taxes. That honor falls solely on the rich--arbitrarily defined as individuals with $200,000 or families with $250,000 in income. [2]

Worse still, the higher taxes will only compound the problem by inducing the highly-productive people to spend more time on the sidelines. And it will lead ablest foreigners in the U.S. to return home, and those who are at home to stay there. [2]

In addition, by focusing exclusively on annual income the Obama plan creates gratuitous inequities. His tax plan takes no notice that many affluent taxpayers have suffered huge declines in asset value and thus feel just as vulnerable as everyone else. [2]

So basically the obama plan is terrible. So that comparison, the flat tax trumps the progressive tax, especially the Obama plan. And same with the Romney plan, his plan uses the same old system that has the same loopholes and regulations. His plan is the best progressive plan out there, but isn't as good as the other 2 proposals. 

999 plan:

This plan is better than the others, but has a few flaws:

Here are the Cain plan's good qualities: 

• It ends nearly all deductions and special interest favors. 
• It ends all payroll taxes. 
• It ends the death tax. 
• It eliminates the double taxation of dividends. 
• It eliminates the taxation of capital gains and repatriated profits. 
• It allows immediate expensing of business investments. 
• It shifts the burden of taxation from production to consumption. 
• It increases capital formation, which will fuel productivity and wage growth.

In short, Cain's plan would be more fair, neutral, transparent, efficient, and pro-growth than today's system. Good stuff!  [3]

The bad:

Cain doesn't get rid of the income tax. Instead, he reforms it. And then he adds a new levy -- a national retail sales tax -- on top of it.  [3]

So he lowers the income tax dramatically on small business owners and the rich, but not the poor. Bu there's the thing, lowering taxes on those people allows them to hire more people because they have more money, so in theory it would help the economy. SO his plan would help the economy, but raise taxes on the poor. So it has that small downside. 

Also it would increase deficits

We have a spending problem in america, but lowering taxes so much may raise the debt. It is a great plan except for this and the problem above. This plan would work here if he proposed spending cuts to handel this problem. So his plan would work, but he needs to add deficit control to fix the problem. 

Perry's plan

Trumps the current system, but is the worst flat tax proposal ever, so better than what we've got, but worse than all other flat taxes. (sorry  Rick). So basically, good plan compared to Obama's or Romney's, but worse than 999 and other flat tax proposals. 

Conclusion:

The flat tax is beneficial for our economy and tax system. It is fair and growth promoting, and eliminates special preferences and loop holes. SO all in all a flat tax trumps a progressive tax. If you want more info go to my 4 source. 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/07/a-brief-guide-to-the-flat-tax [1]

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/09/flat-tax-plan-obama-opinions-columnists-taxes.html [2]

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/dean-clancy/herman-cains-999-plan-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugl [3]

http://www.freedomworks.org/issues/flat-tax [4]

More guns less crime facts

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000201 EndHTML:0000015032 StartFragment:0000002931 EndFragment:0000014996 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/kennethadams/Documents/More%20guns%20less%20crime%20facts.doc

More guns less crime facts

You can guess, I am for gun rights. Lets look at facts here.





More guns less crime (not the book good book by the way)




More guns less crime, again. Now lets look at non-graph evidence.

Over the last quarter-century, many federal, state and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. The federal "assault weapon" ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and the murder rate has since dropped 10 percent. The federal handgun waiting period, for years the centerpiece of gun control supporters` agenda, expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national Instant Check, and the murder rate has since dropped 21 percent.  [1]


So when these gun laws became less stringent crime plummeted. 


Kennsaw georgia:


In 1982 the city council of Kennsaw Georgia passed a law requiring every head of the household to own a gun. People predicted crime hikes and shootouts, but actually the opposite. 


After the laws passage crime dropped 89%, the whole states crime drop was 10%. Historical society of Kennsaw Robert Jones said " it did drop (the crime rate) after it was passed" "and stayed that way for 16 years"


More info at my second source




Well I have proven more guns =less crime, but how about banning guns? How about restricting them? Both of those raise crime.


During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law [3]


So the trigger lock law rose crime




 the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban. [3]


What I said with concrete numbers.


So what about concealed carry laws? Do those lower crime, they pertain to more guns less crime, so does that work? Yes conceal carry laws reduce crime. 




SO look, the right to carry law passes, crime plummets. 


Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect [3]


So the law reduced the murder rate by 36%


Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect [3]


(I'm tired of posting graphs). But same thing it dropped the criem rate. 






This concludes this post, I hope you enjoyed it :)










http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007 [1]
http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm [2]
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp [3]

The death penalty

The death penalty is a deterrent. Why? for many reasons, death is the thing people fear most. And only 3% of criminals are crazy. The other 97% can be deterred. So if you got rid of that 97% crime would drop, a lot.

Deterrence theory:

According to deterrence theory, criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals "rationally maximize their own self-interest (utility) subject to constraints (prices, incomes) that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere." Individuals make their decisions based on the net costs and benefits of each alternative. Thus, deterrence theory provides a basis for analyzing how capital punishment should influence murder rates. Over the years, several studies have demonstrated a link between executions and decreases in murder rates. In fact, studies done in recent years, using sophisticated panel data methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder incidents. [1]


So that 97% will weight the pros and cons. 


Also is saves lives:


Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders. Using state-level panel data from 1960 to 2000, Professors Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd were able to compare the relationship between executions and murder incidents before, during, and after the U.S. Supreme Court's death penalty moratorium. They found that executions had a highly significant negative relationship with murder incidents. Additionally, the implementation of state moratoria is associated with the increased incidence of murders. [1]


So it saves lives because it prevents murders, there are more studies:

Professors H. Naci Mocan and R. Kaj Gittings of the University of Colorado at Denver have published two studies confirming the deterrent effect of capital punishment. The first study used state-level data from 1977 to 1997 to analyze the influence of executions, commutations, and removals from death row on the incidence of murder.For each additional execution, on average, about five murders were deterred. Alternatively, for each additional commutation, on average, five additional murders resulted. A removal from death row by either state courts or the U.S. Supreme Court is associated with an increase of one additional murder. Addressing criticism of their work,Professors Mocan and Gittings conducted additional analyses and found that their original findings provided robust support for the deterrent effect of capital punishment.[1]

So this study saves 5 lives are saved, others say 3, 14. My first source has all of that info.

Also for visual people:

This can be found in my second source.

Now historical deterrence:

In the 1800s, in English occupied India, there was one of the worst gangs of murdering thieves the world has ever known, the Indian hoodlum band known as the Thuggees. Through the course of their existence, dating back to the 1550s, the Thuggees were credited with murdering more than 2,000,000 people, mostly wealthy travelers. The killer secret society plagued India for more than 350 years. The Thuggees traveled in gangs, sometimes disguised as poor beggars or religious mendicants. Sometimes they wore the garb of rich merchants to get closer to unsuspecting victims. One of their principles was never to spill blood, so they always strangled their victims. Each member was required to kill at least once a year in order to maintain membership in the cult. But they killed in the name of religion. The deaths were conceived of as human sacrifices to Kali, the bloodthirsty Hindustani goddess of destruction. It came to pass that the Thuggees began to kill using pickaxes and knives. According to legend, the Thuggees believed that Kali devoured the bodies of their victims. The story goes that once a member of the society hid behind a tree in order to spy on the goddess. The angry goddess punished the Thuggees by making them bury their victims from then on.
The ruling British government worked very hard to stop the Thuggee religion and its murderous practices. Between 1829 and 1848, the British managed to suppress the Thuggees by means of mass arrests and speedy executions. Indeed, rows and rows of Thuggees were left hanging from the gallows along the roads by the dozens. This not only established a zero recidivism rate, but it also greatly discouraged new membership into the cult. The most lethal practitioner of the cult of Thuggee was Buhram. At his trial it was established that he had murdered 931 people between 1790 and 1840. All had been strangled with his waistcloth. Burham was executed in 1840. Appropriately enough, he was hanged until he strangled. In 1832, the Agent to the Governor-General of India, F. C. Smith had this to say about the Thugees and their deeds. [2]


So historically is deters too.


People who are anti-death penalty point out that the states without the death penalty have lower crime rates. But they miss a few facts, the states with the death penalty usually have a lot more people, and more urban areas, which leads to more crime. Like wisconsin and texas, texas has a higher crime rate but has 5 times the population. Also every state in the Union is different, they forget that point to. So their argument is, invalid. 

How about the bible, whats it's take on this? It is for it. 

These quotes came from my second source.

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. for assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."-Matthew 5:17-19

So let the destroyed be destroyed.

"Judge not, that you be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" -Matthew 7:1-5

eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

Christ Himself regarded capital punishment as a just penalty for murder when He said to one of his disciples after he tried to kill a soldier who had come to arrest Jesus: "...all who take the sword will perish by the sword."


And jesus himself. If you are christian you are obliged to be pro-death penalty.

More people are pro-death penalty then not:

61% of americans are for the death penalty, 35% opposed. 4% undecided.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx

Also cost, the death penalty is more expensive, but it has all of these other benefits, so the cost benefit ratio is good, the benefit outweighs the cost.

Risk of executing an innocent:

Our new DNA testing is almost perfect. It will keep innocents from being executed in the current times. It has also freed former people on death row. But historically was it dangerous? No.

After all, far, far more innocent lives have been taken by convicted murderers than the supposedly 23 innocents mistakenly executed this century. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty in this country has ever executed even ONE innocent in the past century! Also consider that thousands of American citizens are murdered each year by released and paroled criminals. These are the serious flaws in life sentences that abolitionists prefer to trivialize to nonexistence. [2]


So supposedly 23 have been innocently killed, but there is no proof to back up this claim. Also even if those 23 where innocent the DP (death penalty) has saved many more innocents due to its deterrence and the studies above. So once again, a cost benefit ratio. And the ratio here is superb. The DP saves more lives than it supposedly takes away. 


Many anti DP advocates say that the DP violates the constitution, the 8th amendment mostly. But the death penalty is not cruel and unusual. In america is is not unusual, and the procedure is painless. So it is constitutional on those rules. 



In Trop v. Dulles, Chief Justice Earl Warren, no friend of the death penalty, said:

"Whatever the arguments may be against capital punishment, both on moral grounds and on grounds and in terms of accomplishing the purposes of punishment.... the death penalty has been employed throughout our history, and in a day when it is still widely accepted, it cannot be said to violate the conceptional concept of cruelty".

Indeed, the Supreme Court has constantly held that the death penalty in itself, as a sentence for a crime, is neither cruel or unusual. In Furman vs. Georgia, the court said:

"The punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution. It implies there is something more inhuman and barbarous, than the mere extinguishment of life."

More examples in my second source. 

Also life without parole is not as good as the death penalty, it actually doesn't save lives. It kills them. Prisoners on life without parole kill inmates, kill prison guards, and sometimes get out of jail even if they have the no parole option added on. Here are examples:

5/1/09 - Illinois governor commutes sentence of mom who killed kids

The new Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has commuted the sentence of Debra Lynn Gindorf, a woman some experts believe was suffering from postpartum depression when she killed her two children more than two decades ago. Gindorf, now 45, was found guilty but mentally ill for the 1985 murders of Christina, 23 months and Jason, 3 months. Gindorf was given a sentence of life without parole, but Quinn shortened the sentence to 48 years. In Illinois, she will receive a day of credit for every day she has served under "good conduct" rules and will be eligible for immediate release on parole because she has already served 24 years. The 45-year-old Gindorf was found guilty but mentally ill in the 1985 slayings of 23-month-old Christina and 3-month-old Jason. She tried to kill herself and the children but she survived the blend of alcohol and sleeping pills and woke the next morning beside her dead children. Quinn spokesman Bob Reed declined comment. The Lake County State's Attorney's office had supported clemency for Gindorf. In interviews published in local papers, Gindorf refers to the murder of her children as "the accident." [3]

more examples in my third source. 

George W. Bush, MBA, 43rd President of the United States, in an Oct. 17, 2000 Third Bush-Gore debate at Washington University, answering to the question "Do both of you believe that the death penalty actually deters crime?," stated:

"I do, that’s the only reason to be for it. I don’t think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don’t think that’s right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people’s lives."

 George E. Pataki, JD, 53rd. Governor of New York State, in an Aug. 30, 1996 press release titled "Statement on Anniversary of Death Penalty by Governor Pataki," stated:

"New Yorkers live in safer communities today because we are finally creating a climate that protects our citizens and causes criminals to fear arrest, prosecution and punishment. ...This has occurred in part because of the strong signal that the death penalty sent to violent criminals and murderers: we won't excuse criminals, we will punish them... I sponsored the death penalty laws because of my firm conviction that it would act as a significant deterrent and provide a true measure of justice to murder victims and their loved ones... I have every confidence that it will continue to deter murders, will continue to enhance public safety and will be enforced fairly and justly."

This concludes this post. Hope you enjoyed it :)

http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-death-penalty-deters-crime-and-saves-lives [1]

http://wesleylowe.com/cp.html#deter [2]

http://prodeathpenalty.com/LWOP.htm [3]