Guns make you safer

I would call this a “Can’t happen to me” story.

People own guns for several reasons. Some people are collectors. Some are hunters. Some are target shooters.

But one big reason is personal safety. Many people are convinced that their easy access to, and liberal carry of, guns makes them safer.

They feel that if they have a gun in their home or can carry it in the street, they will be able to protect themselves.

In this, they are correct. A gun is a potent, self-protection device.

However, they don’t seem to understand, or they do understand but deny two things:

1. If they have easy access to guns, then everyone else has easy access to guns, and having everyone else own and carry guns is a danger their own gun ownership doesn’t solve.

In a way, it’s like driving. We post speed limits, and we arrest people for exceeding those limits.

There are many roads posted for 60 mph that I would love to drive at 85 mph. I feel I’m a good enough driver to do it safely.

But I don’t because I don’t want to get stopped by a cop. And I don’t object to the posting because I don’t want every damn fool driver to zoom past me going 85 mph on that road.

Yes, there are plenty of damn fool drivers who break the law. Sometimes I do it myself. Still don’t object to the speed limit because I am convinced that, despite all the law-breakers, speed limits save lives.

2. And this is the second thing gun owners deny, the “It can’t happen to me” part:

Family Gun Culture May Play a Role in Teens’ Risk of Firearm Suicide

Clinicians need to start conversations about gun access, researcher urges
by Kristen Monaco, Senior Staff Writer, MedPage Today, May 22, 2023

Dystopian reality: U.S. sacrifices its children to keep its guns - CGTN
I have good kids. I teach them gun safety, so they won’t have accidents or commit suicide. Right?

SAN FRANCISCO — Many teens who died by firearm suicide grew up in gun-owning families, according to a small psychological autopsy study.

Interviews with family members of nine teens who died by firearm suicide showed that 89% of decedents had prior family engagement with firearms or the family considered itself to be engaged in firearm culture, said Paul Nestadt, MD, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Anxiety Disorders Clinic in Baltimore.

Keep in mind this was an exceedingly small study, so statistics related to this study have little meaning.

“Interventions must acknowledge culturally embedded routes of identity formation while re-scripting firearms from expressions of family cohesion to instruments that may undermine that cohesion — and might cost the life of their child,” Nestadt said during a press conference at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting.

Suicide death rates have been steadily climbing since 2000, Nestadt explained, and now account for the second most common cause of death among youth.

“It’s a big problem,” Nestadt said. “And when we’re talking about suicide, it’s hard not to talk about firearm suicide.”

“One of the reasons so many suicides are by firearm … is that firearm attempts are much more lethal,” he added.

According to CDC data, firearms are the most common method used in suicide; they were used in 55% of suicides in 2021.

Of suicide attempts that involved a firearm, 90% resulted in a fatality.

For reference, Nestadt said only about 8% of all suicide attempts result in death. “That’s why having a firearm is such an important risk factor for completed suicide,” he said. In addition, most firearm deaths in the U.S. are suicides.

Three distinct themes emerged from the qualitative interviews. The first was firearm culture’s prevalence among families of youth who died by firearm suicide.

“[He] used to love shooting with his dad. That was something that they did together. It was a big connection point for them,” one person said during the interview.

Firearm culture tended to play an integral role in how these families identified themselves and were part of family traditions, Nestadt explained.

The second theme that emerged — and the most clinically relevant, according to Nestadt — was the perspective on firearm risk. Many family members tended to be unaware of the potential danger that access to firearms posed for youth at risk for suicide, and few locked up household guns.

Most families said they would have removed guns from the house if it had been suggested.

“If [the hospital] had recommended it, we would’ve agreed and removed the gun from the house. But I wasn’t worried, though — it wasn’t even a thought,” said one family member.

“I know these are politically valent topics of the time, but as healthcare providers, we ask about their sex life, rashes, all kinds of sensitive things, religion,” he said. “It’s important that we’re able to really do that.”

“I will point out for any healthcare provider that it’s never illegal to ask about gun access. It’s medically relevant to saving your patient’s life,” Nestadt added.

“Pediatricians: remember, this is the second leading cause of death,” he said. “It’s important to screen for all these things that can hurt your kid, but the most likely thing that will result in your child patient dying will be suicide. The number one is accidental death.”

This theme was closely entangled with the third theme that emerged from interviews, which involved risk mitigation strategies.

Calling this “truly a courageous study,” session moderator Howard Liu, MD, MBA, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, praised the research for bringing up such an “important, timely public health discussion.”

“Of course, we’re all facing this challenge of how do we reduce suicide in all ages … and I think this is a really vital discussion and such an important clue about access, and just trying to reduce access in the moment of impulsivity and a moment of grief.

Those last few words are important. Young people tend to be impulsive. Children look for a way to end their pain when things go badly or even seem to go badly.

Fear, embarrassment, rejection, and failure, all are magnified in the young mind, and if there is a gun in the house, death might seem like a preference or a solution rather than a danger.

If you gun owners learn that your child has been driving too fast and has received tickets, you might take his car keys away. But kids generally don’t try to commit suicide by driving, and if they do make an attempt, they likely will survive it.

Bullets are much less survivable.

The bottom line is, easy access to guns might make you feel safer, but that safety is an illusion. And yes, laws cannot 100% prevent criminals from accessing guns, just as laws cannot 100% prevent speeding, dealing drugs, or committing burglaries.

But we have laws for a reason. Laws help prevent bad acts and bad outcomes.

When we had laws restricting gun ownership, we had fewer gun deaths. Laws work. We should try them again.

Of course, a gun accident or suicide can’t happen in your house, can it?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.


Five partial solutions to gun violence

No, there are no 100% solutions to gun violence.

But, yes, we can institute certain partial solutions, greatly diminishing the deaths and woundings that occur every day.

1. Interpret the Constitution properly.  Our founders placed the words, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . . ” at the beginning of the 2nd Amendment for a reason.Clearly, they understood that allowing everyone to have all kinds of “arms,” without limitation, was dangerous to the public.

We are a nation of laws. Regulation always has been and always will be, the key to public safety.

Even gun enthusiasts would be first to admit that the public should be prevented, by regulation from “keeping and bearing” certain “arms”: 50 caliber machine guns or bazookas or cannons or poison gas, or surface-to-air missiles, or atomic arms, etc.

So the question is not one of regulation vs. no regulation, but merely what kind of regulation?

And the Constitution tells us the answer to that question: “A well-regulated militia.” That is the kind of regulation needed. Guns should be under the control of well-regulated militias. They can be federal militias or even state militias, for those states more addicted to guns, but guns are too important not to be regulated.

2. Federalize gun manufacture and importation The misrepresentation of the Constitution, the bribing of Congress by the gun manufacturers and the gun importers and the NRA, the propaganda telling us that guns make us safer, despite daily evidence they don’t — these all are funded by one motive: The profit motive.Eliminate the gun manufacturer’s and importer’s profit motive, and the elements that put too many guns into the hands of too many people disappear.

3. Apply the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations)laws to gangs. A great many gun killings are committed by street gang members.Entire neighborhoods, even towns, are held hostage by the fear of turf wars, drive-by shootings, revenge shootings, and robberies.Street gangs are criminal enterprises under RICO.

Under RICO, a person who has committed “at least two acts of racketeering activity” drawn from a list of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an “enterprise”.

Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count.

In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of “racketeering activity.

Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.

Some patterns of activity include:

It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt. (Bottom line: Every gang member does this, so merely belonging to a gang is considered a crime.)

. . . to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. (For example, if your gang deals in drugs, guns or women, you, as a member of the gang, are liable.)

. . . to conspire to violate any of the provisions [of the law]. (Even talking about breaking the law with your fellow gang members is a felony.)



Your police know who the gang-bangers are. They have lists. The police could round up many of them,  tomorrow.

But rather than arresting gang-bangers, again and again, only to see them let them loose back on the streets to shoot someone, we can break up the gangs and take the gangsters off the streets permanently.

4. Additional penalties for gun carry during a felony Enact a law that essentially says: If you carry a gun while committing a felony, twenty years automatically will be added to the term of the felony itself.

5. Tax gun ownership.  Governments tax personal property, and the amount of tax is determined by the type of property.Place a heavy, annual tax on guns. Make gun ownership expensive.The ostensible purpose of the tax would be to pay for the widespread death, injury and damage to this nation and to its citizens, caused by guns.Anyone caught with a gun, for which no tax has been paid, would be subject to jail, and have the gun confiscated and destroyed.

Denying that guns are a danger to innocent people, while claiming that guns protect “good guys,” as the greedy gun manufacturers tell us, simply hasn’t worked, cannot work and never will work.

Rather than foolishly continuing to repeat failure, common sense must prevail.

There is no way to identify in advance, the so-called “good guys” who should have guns. A “good guy” can become a “bad guy” in an instant, given some minor provocation or no provocation at all.

Even many mass killers have been seeming “good guys,” by any of the myriad definitions.

The only solution is over time to make guns harder and harder to get and use, by a five-pronged offensive:

  1. Interpret the Constitution properly
  2. Remove the profit motive from gun manufacture and sales
  3. Eliminate gangs via the RICO statutes
  4. More jail time for gun-carry during felonies. Get them off the street.
  5. Make gun ownership expensive

Anyone, sincerely hoping to reduce gun violence will renounce the insatiable gun manufacturer’s profit-motivated propaganda, and recognize that for a safer society we must begin to reduce the number of guns in the hands of the populace.

There are many things we are not allowed, yet we agree to the prohibitions, because we understand we must give up something to gain something. That is what being in a society means.

We must give up the unquestioned attachment to guns to achieve a safer society.
Other nations have done it. We Americans can do it, too.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.


Recessions begin an average of 2 years after the blue line first dips below zero. A common phenomenon is for the line briefly to dip below zero, then rise above zero, before falling dramatically below zero. There was a brief dip below zero in 2015, followed by another dip – the familiar pre-recession pattern.
Recessions are cured by a rising red line.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.


Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.
•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
•Deficit spending grows the supply of money
•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
•The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between rich and the rest..
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..