The Wall Street Journal‘s student-written Future View column turned to gun control recently, and Rasmus Haure-Peterson, a philosophy and economics major at the University of Oxford, had a thought in his letter. He wrote, in part,
Given the spree of mass shootings, some targeted gun-control measures are needed for the sake of a safer America, even if they curb some people’s rights on the margins. But gun-rights advocates won’t make that concession unless they know that giving an inch won’t cost them a mile.
In which I disagree with Ben Shapiro and others who support red flag gun laws. There are a number of reasons for my disagreement; here are some, in no particular order. They are, each of them individually, must less collectively, deal breakers.
There’s considerable concern—legitimately so—about going through due process to protect the rights of the individual being “accused” of mental instability or of being dangerous otherwise to folks with whom he might come in contact (home, shopping mall,…). If the man truly is that dangerous, though, the court process cannot act quickly enough to mitigate the situation in the real time during which the danger supposedly exists.
The FBI is looking at ways to scan Facebook (and Twitter, et al.) postings with a view toproactively identify and reactively monitor threats to the United States and its interests.
In late 2016, following an investigation by the American Civil Liberties Union into social-media monitoring done by outside developers on behalf of law enforcement, Facebook and Twitter cracked down on those services and explicitly banned the use of their data for surveillance purposes….
Facebook’s ban allowed law-enforcement agencies to look at public profiles manually but not use software designed for large-scale collection and analysis of user data.
Gun rights need to be protected, but the Second Amendment is not a suicide pact.
Indeed, they do, and it is not. But violating the Second Amendment as a matter of routine, or gutting it as the Progressive-Democrats want to do (background checks? Where would the Progressive-Democrats stop? They refuse to say, they refuse to articulate their limiting principle) certainly would be national suicide.
…those in the gun lobby who claim that denying access to guns from those with a history of mental illness violates individual rights.
In the aftermath of Boeing’s failure with its 737MAX, the FAA—and foreign jurisdictions—are on the verge of entering that larger failure regime.
As Boeing Co and safety regulators push to complete long-awaited fixes for 737 MAX jets, testing has expanded to cover increasingly unlikely emergencies including potential computer failures pinpointed by overseas authorities, according to US government officials briefed on the details.
The broader risk analyses and simulator scenarios, some details of which haven’t been reported before, show the lengths to which leaders of the Federal Aviation Administration, in coordination with their foreign counterparts, are going to verify the safety of the MAX fleet before allowing the planes to fly again.
The New Zealand government, enthusiastically led in this by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, intends to create a law requiring New Zealanders to register with the government the gun licenses they have and the guns they have. This new…law…also is intended to make it harder to get, and keep, a gun license.
Other provisions of the thing include
establishment of new licensing for around 260 shooting clubs and ranges
expansion police authority to confiscate weapons if an individual shows (government defined) warning signs
More people are licensed to carry concealed weapons in Fresno County than any other county in California, according to data from the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office and the Fresno Police Department [17,400 licenses for a population of 994,000].
Orange County is next with 12,008 licenses [population 3.2 million].
Los Angeles County, with a population of more than 10 million, had only 424 permits as of last summer….
Yes, ex-Prime Minister John Major claims himself a Conservative, but he’s acting more and more Left. Boris Johnson, British Prime Minister wannabe and front-runner to replace the resigned Theresa May, has said that if needs be, he’ll prorogue Parliament to block an anti-no-deal Brexit vote, if a no-deal departure is necessary.
Prorogue: a temporary suspension of Parliament following petition of the Queen by her first minister—the Prime Minister—for permission to suspend Parliament and her granting that permission. This use is unusual; prorogation is normally used for normal terminations of Parliamentary sessions; the term also describes the interval between that termination and the normal opening of the next session.
Investors worry about the impact on home mortgage costs from the Trump administration’s efforts to reform Federal involvement in the business—for instance, cutting Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae loose from Federal controls and support.
The WSJ‘s subheadline of the article at the link sums up those investors’ worry:
[A]ny overhaul to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could reduce or eliminate the federal backstop
To which this investor—and home-owner and mortgage payer—says, “Yeah, and?”
There should be no Federal backstop at all, there should be no Federal involvement in this, or any other, industry at all. Federal involvement only distorts the market, and Federal money, being the increased demand of additional and protected money, only drives up costs.