Fallacy of Gun Control Laws

An interesting read from Thomas Sowell-

"The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available."

"When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas."

"The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates."

"But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries— and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time."

Check it out.

Guns

"The school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut is a tragedy beyond comprehension."

True enough.  However, a misguided attempt to disarm the population will not solve anything.  The problem of course is people.  

When the NRA suggested stationing armed guards in U.S. schools, there was an outcry.  Why?  What is wrong with defending ourselves?  Perhaps we could take a lesson from Israel, where they have serious terrorist issues.   

Chicken and All That

The Fuzz has not been stuffing himself with Chick-fil-A chicken these days.  But that's only cause he doesn't care much for the stuff.
He does have a few thoughts though.
Professor Warren J. Blumenfeld writes:
 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-j-blumenfeld/chick-fil-a-ceo-makes-no-bones-about-biblical-marriage_b_1720074.html)-
"Questioned about the opposition his company, Chick-fil-A, has received on its position supporting the so-called 'traditional family,' CEO Dan Cathy quipped, 'Well, guilty as charged.'  In a recent article appearing in the Baptist Press (July 22), he continued that 'We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.'"
Professor Blumenfeld then cites several examples of what he claims are "biblical principles". 
First Abraham:
"Approximately 4,000 years ago, Abraham (commonly referred to as "the father of the Jewish and Arab people" and patriarch of Jews, Christians and Muslims) was a distant ancestor [assume he meant descendant]  of Shem, son of Noah. When his wife Sarah (who in fact was his half-sister having a common father) was unable to conceive, as it is written, Sarah told Abraham to conceive a child with her Egyptian maidservant Hagar, who birthed a son, Ishmael."
This is actually an example of how not to do things.  This affair resulted in nothing but trouble for Abraham  and resulting generations.  The people in the Bible are as flawed as any of the rest of us, and everything they do should not be emulated. 
Jacob:
His polygamy caused family strife.  This is another example of how not to do things.
David:
Professor Blumenfeld implies that David and Jonathan's relationship was homosexual, quoting  2 Samuel 1:25-26: "...You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women."  This is going a bit beyond what is actually written.  But, even if it were the case (which I doubt) David was also an adulterer and murderer.  These are hardly traits to emulate either.
Ruth:
"Naomi and Ruth likewise loved one another romantically."  This is another assumption based on a single word, that in it self, in no way implies a sexual relationship.
Mr. Cathy would be viewing the Bible from a Christian perspective of course, which does not condone polygamy.  Nor does it condone homosexuality.  Romans 1:26,27: "... even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature... Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men..."
Professor Blumenfeld quotes Ephesians 5:22: "Wives, be submissive to your husbands..." but ignores Ephesians 5:21: "submitting to one another..." and Galatians 3:28 "...there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
To equate Christians who oppose same sex marriage with Islamic fundamentalists who stone adulterers is a bit much in light of Jesus' own actions in the 8th chapter of John.
If same sex couples want to live together, that is their own business.  But let's not try to make it the same thing as marriage.  It seems to be only common sense to see this as a male- female relationship.
Mr. Cathy has every right to express his personal opinion on this subject.  If someone is offended by this, they don't have to eat his chicken.  Trying to run Chick-fil-A out of town, seems a bit excessive.
   

Health Care & the Supreme Court

Well, with the election at least this year, it may be time for The Fuzz to have a few more Fuzzy Ideas.
The big thing today is Health Care & the Supreme Court.
The Fuzz finds it repugnant that one should be forced to purchase insurance from a private company. He does realize that the plan would not work without this little provision. But if the real goal is some sort of universal health care system, why play these games?
Why not just be straight up about it and go to Socialized Medicine?
If we are expected to give up our freedom, let's just be honest about it.