I tend to think that gun control will be ineffective if the focus on eliminating future sales of firearm types continues. As pointed out in several articles lately, the number of firearms already in the hands of Americans makes future sales the least effective means of control. Similarly, limits on the sale of ammunition are also grabbing the wrong end of the stick. So, why not impose the restrictions where they are needed – on the owners and users of firearms.

If we consider the licensing of motor vehicle operators, we see that, in general, the restrictions take the form of denying access to those deemed too dangerous to operate any vehicle and then defining license classes for vehicles of increasing hazard. Why not a similar system for owners and handlers (operators) of firearms? Level 1 (or perhaps no license required) for limited range/limited capacity weapons (focus here is on limited damage potential) such as single-shot .22s, single- and double-barrel shotguns. Level 2 requires background check and training/testing for revolvers, bolt-action hunting rifles, pump or semi-automatic shotguns with limited magazine capacity, etc. Level 3 requires additional training/certification, more stringent background checks, and medical/psych evaluation for “military” style weapons with  large magazines, high-velocity ammunition, etc. – in other words, the ability to cause considerable harm at a considerable distance in a short time.

Licensing would be mandatory for anyone owning or operating (having in their possession) a weapon. Licensing violations would be federal offenses at the felony level (conviction would revoke future privileges to own or operate firearms. So, yes, criminals could illegally obtain weapons and use them but would face stiff federal penalties in addition to whatever the state assessed as a sentence. Under this plan, simply being in possession of a firearm without the appropriate license would guarantee jail time.

Sure, it leads to a national registry of firearms, gun owners, and licensed operators but so what? This is hardly an infringement of anybody’s “right” and is hardly going to encourage the government to institute a tyrannical state. To those who claim they would resist foreign or domestic military forces with their collection of weapons, I can only say, “Wake up, grow up, and get real”. Your deer rifle, shotgun, or AR-15 look-alike is not likely to make much of an impression on the special forces of most modern nations (especially the US) – and, if it does, they call in the armor or an air strike.

North Korea seems hell-bent on provoking a renewal of war on the peninsula. The US should be especially wary that they will attempt to “validate” their nuclear weapons program, missile technology, and political posturing all in one fell swoop. How? If they truly have nuclear explosives (as opposed to nuclear weapons), one possibility would be to load one (or more) on a ship or ships, send the vessel to a US port, and detonate it. Timing it to the launch of a missile would be icing on the cake, but they could always claim that the missile was so stealthy that the US failed to detect the launch. They get credit for a nuclear attack on the US (or Japan or South Korea), credit for a successful missle program, credit for fooling the US intelligence agencies, etc. They also get (amazingly, in my mind) a measure of protection since the US would be hard-pressed to “prove” they did it – everything we do to prove they did it increases the extent to which it appears we regard them as a real threat and (perhaps more importantly) as an equal.

Caution: this analysis is based solely upon what I have read on the InterNet and in the newspaper. By at least one account, the cease-fire agreement which ended the Korean hostilities (meaning overt, armed conflict) in the 1950s was between North Korea and South Korea, the United States, and the United Nations (on whose behalf the US and other nations joined the conflict). If that is the case, then perhaps it is time for a member nation of the UN (preferably one not widely viewed as a US stooge) to introduce a resolution accepting the North Korean public disavowal of that cease-fire and declaring that a state of war now exists between North Korea and the United Nations. Properly equipped with provisions for maritime embargo, no-fly zone (including commercial flights), suspension of commerce, and denial of all forms of electronic communication along with freezing of all assets outside their boundaries, such a declaration could allow North Korea to discover the joys of being at war with the entire world. The Economist on-line today had an excellent analysis to support the thesis that it is time to show the North Koreans what happens when the world takes them seriously – I simply propose a mechanism for that demonstration.

Should they persist (and that, in my opinion, is highly probable), the UN could request that the US and other member states undertake pre-emptive or preventative actions such as destroying the missile claimed to be deployed on the sea coast (one salvo from the main batteries aboard the USS Missouri could do the job and show that the North Koreans don’t even warrant modern technologies to deny their aspirations).Should they carry out their threat to execute a nuclear strike on the US or allied nations, Well, the President has said he wants to draw down the US nuclear stockpile…

A letter in this morning’s paper summed up the whole debate over employers’ rights to pick and choose which health benefits they offer by stating, in essence, birth control is a private matter and should be kept that way. Meaning, of course, that individuals should simply pay for it themselves and not expect it as part of an insurance plan. Certainly an interesting perspective, but, if applied uniformly, wouldn’t it be equally logical to assert that pregnancy, birth, and child-rearing are equally private? Should health insurance distribute these costs over the broad population of rate payers?

If employers can elect on moral or religious grounds to deny birth control as a benefit in their plans, shouldn’t their rates go up to absorb the additional costs of increased pregnancies? After all, absence of birth control seems like a pretty certain guarantee of an increased number of pregnancies. Why should those outside the employer’s realm be forced to pay for the increased cost? Those costs – from prenatal to pediatric – should be absorbed in a risk pool limited to the employees of that business. Now, the employer could opt to pass those costs along to the employees as their share of the premium and could do so based on the number of pregnancies and children of each person in the firm. That would certainly make the cost of birth control seem less onerous.

As an aside, does this same benefit denial extend to vasectomies, tubal ligations, or hysterectomies? Back on track, allowing employers to cherry-pick benefits in the plans they offer employees opens a world of unpleasant opportunities – what if your employer states a moral objection to large families? Or to alcoholism? Or to cancer? Or to HIV?

It seems to me that some important points are being overlooked in the health care debate. First, health care and other benefits were originally offered to employees to attract good people and retain employees who had gained valuable experience. Unions pressed for these benefits for their members as well. Apparently, employers no longer believe that retaining  qualified and experienced employees steeped in corporate culture and keepers of the corporate memory is as important as it was – or, perhaps the economic situation is so bad that they think they don’t have to worry.

At some level, all health care costs (except for the very wealthy) are employer-paid. The advantages of a group plan offered to employees are a presumed discount for the group premiums and the general acceptance of pre-existing conditions. When an employer opts not to provide benefits, the employee either does without health insurance, tries to save sufficient money to pay his own way, or buys an individual plan using money out of his paycheck. So, we might expect that a company which provides benefits can hire employees at both a lower salary and a lower total cost (given the group discount on premiums) than a comparable company which does not. Should the second company be able to hire people at the same salary as the first, we would expect to see higher turnover, increased absenteeism, and generally less commitment to the company (reflecting the lack of commitment of the company to the employees).

Does this really happen?

I personally believe that the opponents of California’s Proposition 8 and similar measures around the country restricting marriage to a man and a woman should quit wasting their time and money fighting the laws. They should instead redirect their efforts toward what I see as the logical consquences of these laws. It mystifies me that nobody has demanded that federal and state laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation be rigorously enforced in the states which have enacted these laws.

If marriage is indeed a discriminatory institution, then states should immediately cease issuing marriage licenses, stop providing funding for training marriage counselors in public colleges and universities, and eliminate preferential tax treatment for married couples (the federal government should eliminate this as well). It should be illegal for anyone to ask one’s marital status or to use it as a condition in any matter (after all, stating that one is married is in effect stating one’s sexual orientation in those states).

Churches could continue to marry couples according to their beliefs, but there would be no legal standing for such marriages – simply a religious ritual. Those wishing some sort of legal recognition could establish a domestic partnership with as many of the rights, privileges, benefits, etc. currently afforded to marriage as they can identify and claim,

The idea that the health care industry can pass along the cost of treating uninsured or other non-paying patients to the insurance companies who then pass it along to those paying the premiums is just plain wrong. How big a factor is this in our rapidly escalting health care costs?  If the insured are going to wind up paying anyway, wouldn’t it be nice to be told up front?

It seems as though this is a sure ticket to a wild ride on a death-spiral: as insurance becomes less affordable, more individuals drop out, more employers either drop out or raise the employee share, and the rates keep going up in a futile attempt to keep the profit margin high.