Gun Restrictions Increased

Thirty-four people around the country whose own lives or the lives of their relatives have been affected by gun violence joined the mayor in his call for tighter regulations.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and dozens of shooting survivors and victims' relatives are calling on Congress and President Barack Obama to tighten gun laws and enforcement.

The mayor was appearing at City Hall Monday with 34 people whose own lives or the lives of their relatives have been rent by gun violence around the country. They're sending videos to lawmakers telling their stories.

Bloomberg has long been an advocate for tougher national gun regulations. He has found himself at the forefront of a re-energized push for gun control since Friday's massacre at a Connecticut elementary school.

He says the carnage "demands immediate national action."

This is a recent post from MSN News, and it makes me cry, but not for the reasons you would think. I cried when I heard of the initial shooting in Connecticut. It was a horrible event, which has not been matched in maliciousness in America in years. However, the reaction to this horrible incident is nearly as wrong.

People don't seem to understand that by putting more gun restrictions in place, the innocent people are only hurt more. There was a Facebook post on Friday which summed the situation up perfectly: "You cab ban guns, box cutters, knives, swords, sticks or stones. You Won't Disarm Evil." By making it more difficult for the good innocent people to have guns, it gives the evil an advantage. The restrictions won't inhibit the bad people. Haven't people heard about how drugs are illegal? And yet are rampant among lawbreakers?

It is shear stupidity to believe that lawbreakers will abide by a law that will make lawbreaking for difficult for them. Criminals aren't that stupid. So why would a government and president agree to more gun restrictions if they really have the good of the people in mind? That's easy, they don't.

The Affordable Housing Crisis

    The precious few federal programs that provide rental assistance to the nation’s poorest and most vulnerable families are already under-financed. These programs provide decent housing for about only a quarter of the low-income families who qualify for them. And with nearly nine million households teetering on the verge of homelessness, the country clearly needs more support for affordable housing, not less...

    Congress has not treated these housing programs kindly in recent years. Between 2010 and 2012, financing fell by about $2.5 billion, or nearly 6 percent, although some of this was mitigated by one-time measures, like spending from reserves. President Obama’s budget for the 2013 fiscal year is not much of an improvement; given inflation, Congress would have to increase appropriations just to keep treading water, when, in fact, what the poor in this country need is a significant jump.

    The administration obviously needs to do better. The number of families eligible for this program has grown significantly since the start of the recession. Last year, for example, 8.5 million very-low-income families without housing assistance paid more than half their incomes for housing — an increase of 43 percent from 2007...

    [The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities] estimates that eligible families would end up paying about only 30 percent of incomes on housing, and that even a modest renters’ credit capped at $5 billion would lift 250,000 renters out of poverty, help 1.2 million of the lowest income renters and cut the number of poor households that spend more than half their incomes on rent by 700,000. That proposal deserves a serious reading.

   This is part of an opinion article which was published December 4th through the New York Times. The author claims that the government needs to give more money to poor families. He seems to care about the poverty-stricken people of America who are struggling to support their families. I can understand that, but I have a serious problem with what he is asking.

   Why should the government GIVE away money to people? Last time I checked, the government didn't owe the people of America anything, though they were in trillions of dollars of debt to other countries. I can understand wanting to give the "poor" a boost, but wouldn't it be more helpful to give them jobs to stimulate the economy and a steady income than simply handing them money, which they will spend and then need more of? Besides, if government simply gives them money, they become dependent on the government, which completely ruins the idea of freedom and independence. If the government pays for your food and housing, they practically own you. If the government owns you, how are you free?

   Who is he defining as poor? He says these "very-low-income families... paid more than half their incomes for housing", but at least they have housing. What about the victims of hurricane Sandy? The states who have been hit by the storm are asking for tens of billions of dollars for repairs and clean up. Many of those people lost loved ones and property, not to mention businesses, etc.

   It's admirable that the author wants to help the poor, but I don't believe that is important enough to spend billions on at the moment. I am sure there are "very-low-income families" who have had hard lives and could use some help from the government, but regardless of the "43 percent increase" since "2007", there are no-where near as many "poor" as there was during the Great Depression, and the government did not get out of that by handing money to people, so they shouldn't be doing that now.

Supreme Court Gene Issue

   WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would decide whether human genes may be patented. The case the court added to its docket concerns patents held by Myriad Genetics, a Utah company, on genes that correlate with increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

   The patents were challenged by scientists and doctors who said that their research and ability to help patients had been frustrated...

   The legal question for the justices is whether isolated genes are “products of nature” that may not be patented or “human-made inventions” eligible for patent protection. A divided three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in Washington ruled for the company. The three judges each issued an opinion, and a central dispute was whether isolated genes are sufficiently different from ones in the body to allow them to be patented.

   “The isolated DNA molecules before us are not found in nature,” wrote Judge Alan D. Lourie, who was in the majority. “They are obtained in the laboratory and are man-made, the product of human ingenuity.”

   This is part of an article, which was written November 30th by Adam Liptak on the New York Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/us/supreme-court-takes-up-question-of-patents-in-gene-research.html?ref=us).

   I found the whole idea very interesting, especially after watching Gattaca, a 1997 sci-fi film about genetically enhanced humans. Technology is becoming advanced enough to be able to tell us which gene does what, causes which disease, and can be changed to make things better. It is a really cool idea, but at what cost?

   So, if it becomes 'legal', patented, and a 'human-made invention' to alter one gene, what will humans be considered when more of their genes are altered than are not? Will that make the person a 'human-made invention'?
   There could potentially be future problems with gene alterations as well. If it becomes widely popular, and everyone begins getting the same genes altered, then people will become similar in more areas than is healthy. The Markab race from Babylon 5 discovered this when the Drafa Plague -- an airborne virus -- attacked them. They had cloned themselves to reproduce (because sexual reproduction was no longer an option), so all their genes and immune systems were identical. Thus, when the Drafa Plague attacked, they all succumbed and the whole race died.
   Though these are somewhat futuristic and exaggerated examples, they are possibly warnings against altering human genes. Every invention has its pros and cons, and most can be used for good or evil. We need to weigh the cost, and not simply allow it because it's "scientific".