SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
Data are the percentage of responses in each quartile.

From left to right, the quartiles are 0-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and over 75%.

Comments are by the survey’s author, Bob.

What % believe that if any person works hard, they can move ahead in life? 0 30 35 35
Comment: Responses were more optimistic than other polls.
What % of billionaires would fund non-profit, healthy food market in public housing project? 70 25 0 5
Comment: Responses were appropriately cynical.
What % of people will buy the newest iPhone? 10 35 45 10
Comment: The name and the product are hard to resist.
If Trump is elected, what are the chances that there is an increase in violent deaths? 30 40 20 10
Comment: Responses mirror widespread nervousness compared with a normal election.
If zoning laws okay, what % of homeowners would invite homeless to build tiny house there? 95 5 0 0
Comment: An appropriate recognition of hypocrisy.
In a gated community, what % of residents would vote in favor of greater ethnic diversity? 70 25 0 5
Comment: Self-selection in the polling group might be at work here.
What % of contributors to environmental groups are owners of multiple residences and cars? 15 15 50 20
Comment: An appropriate recognition of hypocrisy.
What % think that racial tensions are declining? 60 35 5 0
Comment: Major changes in society are needed.
What % of people are upset about income equality? 10 30 35 25
Comment: Appropriate recognition that this is a real issue.
What % of NY Times Board would invite border crosser to live in their home until legal? 95 0 5 0
Comment: Appropriate recognition of hypocrisy.
If Biden is elected, what are the chances that there is an increase in violent deaths? 50 25 15 10
Comment: Slightly less fear than if Trump is elected, but still apparent nervousness.
What % of music executives would reject a song full of obscenities? 75 15 0 10
Comment: The drive for profits beats other considerations.
What % of adults are comfortable talking about mental health issues? 50 40 5 5
Comment: Surprised at the distribution; trend seems more in the direction of open discussion.
What % of voters believe the upcoming Presidential election is the worst match-up ever? 5 10 35 50
Comment: Maybe only historians believe it should be the right hand boxl
What % of Hollywood exes would reject a violent movie because they favor of gun reform? 95 5 0 0
Comment: The drive for profits beats other considerations.
What % of people change their minds after learning more about the facts of a subject? 35 55 10 0
Comment: The responses seem accurate, and they are quite disturbing.
What % or college graduates are in jobs consistent with their degree/major? 30 65 5 0
Comment: This brings additional fuel to the debate about higher education.
What % of adults believe the American medical system must be drastically changed? 15 35 20 30
Comment: Surprised at the distribution; the trend is toward a belief that change is mandatory.
What % of parents of school-age children would advocate for higher teacher salaries? 15 30 35 20
Comment: This should be a box four, with the proviso that teachers be held accountable.
What % of adults believe the planet will look completely different in 50 years? 15 35 15 35
Comment: Reading the standard futuristic book would suggest too much optimism in this distribution.

Data on Respondents: Age Under 30: 25% 30-50: 35% Over 50: 40%
Highest education degree attained: Associates: 5% Bachelor’s: 65% Master’s: 20% PhD: 10%
Married? Yes: 50% No: 50% Children? Yes: 45% No: 55%

A SUCCINCT GUIDE? TO UNDERSTANDING? THE CAMPUS PROTESTS

To stay sane (it’s a relative concept), I needed to write something. So I slipped on my sarcasm shirt (given me by a friend) and let loose.

To say that I am thoroughly depressed  — by the absence of civil debate, by the boisterous few (another relative description) spurred on, but only in part, by outsiders to college campuses who were trained in professional activism – is an understatement.

But no kvetching about a coddled generation ignorant of history and gleaning their thimble full of news from TikTok. Nothing about affluent young people wrought with anxiety about the economic system which brought them their unearned comfortability, their inbred sense of entitlement that shields them against any negative consequences from throwing into the air (without their names attached) words devoid of any serious thought.

Moving right along, here is the guide:

*It is always appropriate for those with less to be against those with more. This is true even if you actually have more; it’s the identification that counts.

*It is always acceptable for representative non-white leaders and their followers to be against whites. Cancel culture: chapter one, paragraph one, sentence one.

*For a couple thousand years, being against Jews has been common. Nothing new there. Those urging the destruction of all Jews are protected under the principles of free speech.

*As a slight digression, stimulated by that free speech comment, only bona fide African Americans can use the n-word with impunity. Anyone else muttering this word has committed a hate crime.

*Mob psychology has not changed: people act in a way they would not if solo.

*If “hostility is just its own waving flag of wanting to be seen,” mission accomplished. After much dithering, Biden finally spoke, tapping protestors on the wrist and, more or less simultaneously, cancelling another bunch of student debt and proving his bona fides as a friend of the young by endorsing marijuana. Jeez, in the old days, you simply bought votes with cash and jobs; now politicians have to make policy statements.

Speaking of Biden, It would be fascinating to hear him address the parents of young people for whom getting to college was not a given, where their education has been, shall we say, tampered with, whose graduation from a brand name school (in the past anyway) has been sullied.

**

Reconstructionists of the left want to re-do American society along racial and economic redistribution lines. Campus protests come straight out of the playbook in this regard. The fact that certain ethnicities do not have standing in this re-do is of no consequence.

Reconstructionists of the right have no forward thought process, no cohesive plan, no practicality or substance to their policy proclamations. Basically they want to roll back the clock to their fantasy of yesteryear, when nobody questioned the superiority of white males. Guess they missed the memo about changing dynamics and demographics.

**

Sooooooooooooooooo — how can there not be aggressive conflict and conduct.

Can it be comforting that on average, each of us owns a gun.

Will the civil war unfolding in the United States be fought with an AR-15 or will the combatants leave their weaponry at home and convene for strenuous debate, agreeing that violence in the political process (haven’t there already been multiple court cases emanating from the insurrection) is the nuclear threat, the third rail, not to be employed or touched.

What does this have to do with the protests? Everything I think.

 

This essay has three components.

The first is a list of gun reform suggestions from the best article I have read on the subject.

The second is an extended discussion about legal liability. The latter includes both commentary on specific gun decisions and the growth in liability decisions elsewhere that are establishing new legal ground or have the potential to do so. My conceptualization is that the constitutional protection afforded gun ownership is increasingly a uniquely isolated phenomenon in the world of liability. More later.

The third and final component is my own responses to my recent Gun Survey.

A. “A Smarter Way to Reduce Gun Deaths,” by Nicholas Kristof; “New York Times” 1/29/2023

This is the most insightful article that I have read on gun reform. Kristof’s premise is that guns will never be banned, but, analogous to the set of policies surrounding cigarettes, alcohol, and cars, there are harmful public health implications to the ownership of guns which should be addressed. The article has exhaustive data on guns, their owners, and the wide variety of relevant laws throughout the USA.

As he points out, public health initiatives typically involve a bunch of “little” things that add up to an important overall impact. His suggestions are consistent with having such a list. These are representative of Kristof’s thoughts:

• No guns to those under 21 or to those who have a record of violent misdemeanors, alcohol abuse, or domestic violence. Moreover, no guns to those where a red flag exists (including stalking) that indicates they may be a threat to themselves or others.
• Background checks are an obvious essential with respect to the above policy, which would apply to the purchase of ammunition as well.
• If you need a license to drive a car, which is a dangerous product, you should need a license to acquire and own a gun.
• There should be restrictions on the type of guns available for purchase.
• Just as warning labels have proven to have an admittedly undefined impact on the purchase of cigarettes, they should be applied to guns as well.
• Raising prices through heavy taxes can play a role. As could an insurance requirement.

Kristof notes that since his graduation from high school in 1977, more Americans have died from guns than in all the wars in American history. He concludes that a harm reduction model could reduce gun mortality by one-third, which is approximately 15,000 lives per year. Can anybody argue that such a saving is not worth the multi-prong effort involved?

B.The Legal Liability Ledger

 It is my thought that the concept of legal liability, which is spreading to encompass a myriad of relatively new situations, ultimately could be more of a stimulus to gun reform than changes resulting from legislation, whether at the state or federal level. Judges will be faced with a different set of factors, major amounts of money will be involved, and gun reform will slowly inch forward. And, in complementary fashion, if parents and responsible educators are oblivious to what their offspring or students are doing and suffer criminal convictions as a result, more attention will turn to the issue of legislated gun reform, irrespective of the financial implications of liability.

The argument by those accused in many of the liability cases described below is that they have no control over the ultimate use of their product. However, awareness of misuse, especially when it touches frequency and severity buttons, is becoming a powerful offsetting factor. Marketing messages that cross the line from acceptable hyperbole to a linkage to socially destructive behavior create liability for those who are responsible for the message.

Caveat One of course is the constitution and the differing interpretations of its malleability. Learned minds tackle that thorny topic elsewhere. My financial point above might be phrased this way; if gun dealers are found liable for the disastrous misuse of the product they sell, they will be hit in the pocketbook and react, with no need for constitutional change.

Caveat Two is the work needed on reconciling HIPPA privacy mandates with responsibility to the community. For example, reflecting a public belief that the NYC subway system is not safe, Mayor Adams has added police, the National Guard, and gun-detecting technology to the system. On closer examination, it has been found that the majority of assailants have mental health issues, suggesting policy changes in that area could have a greater impact.

Caveat Three is the need for a bit of common sense to be injected into the legal conversation. For example, in New York City, the police picked up a guy whom they had seen putting a gun in his pants pocket prior to jumping in a van that was recognized as being one used by gang members. They checked his record, which showed a sex trafficking conviction, which meant he was ineligible to own a gun. The judge tossed the case out: “there was no probable cause to apprehend this individual, no knowledge that he was going to use his gun for an illegal purpose.”

Meanwhile, it is ironic that an on-going argument of the gun lobby – people need a way to protect themselves – may become more relevant with the outcome of the pending presidential election. It is frightening to envision fanatics of both sides running to their legally purchased weaponry.

Guns: Background Comments and a Bit of Psychology

It is reasonable to state that the United States was born in violence and has experienced few prolonged periods of peace. Historically, as the country grew, it simply pushed out those who resisted the expansion of its borders, and if it wanted land owned by a neighboring country, it took that as well. Guns, not pens, were the agents of enforcement.

To look at World War II and claim an undiluted good guy label for the USA, one must be careful – there are multiple twists and turns in that saga. For one, returning minority veterans faced the same racism that previously had been evident. Secondly, the country’s laudable accomplishment in saving lives emboldened it to pursue escapades which might have been appropriately anti-the growth of Communism were it not for the attendant destruction of good relationships throughout Central and South America. Fundamentally, as it appeared so-called domestic boundary lines had become fixed, the USA had basically redefined the term “boundary” to include non-proximate nations which were not abiding by the American view of how they should manage their affairs.

This boundary mentality is evident today, and it has little to do with people crossing into the country without securing legal status or having a path to do so. It has to do with an existential crisis in the American psyche, the gun representing psychological displacement, a way to shoot away all the myriad ills and dissatisfactions residing in one’s head.

“I used to know who I was, who we were – the ones with that good guy hat. Now I have no idea – the onslaught of change is overwhelming: social media, gender identity, cancel culture, technology, the future of the planet, an open border. Yipes, I could go on. My church is no longer a source of mental refreshment and grounding in values. My neighbors are anonymous. My job is not secure. My wife is depressed. Our kids are gone, scattered throughout the country. Like everybody, we buy stuff from a multi-billionaire with a half-billion dollar yacht, and he gets it from a Communist country.

Hello, is there any wonder that I do not know which end is up, that the clarity of suicide moves from “I would never consider such a thing” to a thought process.

But wait, my home is my castle and my gun is my birthright. The physical structure, and the ideas embodied in my concept of family and correct values – this combination is now my boundary and my gun is my means of enforcement. Step across my threshold, tell me my values are destructive to the alleged aspirations of my country – I can blow you away and call it self-defense.

And it’s not just me in this fight between my ears, my wife just bought her first gun. We’ll be ready.”

Analogously, in South Africa, the white community was fearful that the end of apartheid would mean a bloodbath, freed blacks wreaking revenge. When this did not happen, there was a troubling realization within the white head, “you mean, those negatives we used to say about blacks were inaccurate — which means my concept of self is destroyed  – which means I was the bad guy!”

Is the American fear problem, the one which leads to everybody having a gun, more what is between our ears than documentable reality?

On the other hand, what is incontrovertible is that the USA is second to Yemen in the category of mass killings (defined as four deaths or more).  As a frame of comparison, when Serbia, a country one might associate with periodic troubles in Eastern Europe, had two mass shootings last year, they were its first such events in seven years. To get a gun there, you must be over 18, have a reason, take a training course, and have a background check that includes a medical exam and interviews with neighbors and relatives. Police visit the house to see that safe storage is available. A history of crime, mental disorders, or substance abuse disqualifies an applicant.

Since unfortunately we are a long way from having Serbian-type requirements, it should be good news that Vice-President Kamala Harris has announced the creation of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center to assist in the implementation of much-needed Red Flag laws.

Of more immediate impact is that under a recently passed rule, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will require any business that sells guns for profit to register as a federally licensed firearms dealer. It is estimated this could add 23,000 federal dealers to the 80,000 already regulated. Before, unlicensed gun dealers were able to sell at gun shows without any of the background checks associated with a federal license.

New Liability Ground for Guns

*Both the father (James Crumbley) and the mother (Jennifer Crumbley) of the 15 year-old gunman (Ethan Crumbley) who killed four people and injured seven others at a high school in Oxford, Michigan were found guilty of unintentional manslaughter and sentenced to 10-15 years in prison.

The father had bought a gun for Ethan, then “failed to secure it or tell schools officials about it the day of the shooting after their son made troubling drawings on a math sheet.” Those drawings included his early Christmas present, a 9mm handgun; the words “blood everywhere,” “the thoughts won’t stop,” and “help me.” The school suggested mental health services be sought; it gave them 48 hours to do so. The boy left the meeting and began firing. He is now in prison without the possibility of parole.

The mother had claimed she was unaware of their son’s problems and had made a statement on the stand that she “wouldn’t do anything differently as a parent.”

This case broke new legal ground in its use of a manslaughter charge. Previous, somewhat analogous situations had resulted in reckless conduct charges, minor time in jail and a couple of years on probation. The non-profit organization named Brady: United against Gun Violence has filed suit against the dealer, Arms Shooting Goods, who sold the gun used in this case. The parents of the victims have filed suit against the school and Arms.

Extended liability exposure for those not directly involved in an incident is at the core of this legal situation, as is true of multiple non-gun cases to be delineated below.

Note: Michigan now has a law requiring gun owners to lock their firearms when a minor is likely to be on the premises, and it requires guns involved in buyback programs to be physically destroyed; heretofore, they were not, and the parts thereof reappeared, ready to be reassembled into guns.

*In Virginia, a former school principal has been indicted on “eight felony counts of child abuse and neglect” that led to a six year-old boy shooting his teacher in 2023. The allegation is that the principal ignored repeated complaints from teachers about the boy, including a request for action when a classmate that day indicated the boy had a gun. The mother of the boy already had been sentenced to two years in prison for felony child neglect. The wounded teacher is suing the school.

*In Lewiston, Maine, the mass shooting of 18 people on October 25, 2023 has resulted in a variety of findings, including that law enforcement should have moved to take the gunman into custody prior to the shooting based on his “increasingly erratic and paranoid behavior,” his prior need for mental health evaluation, and his ownership of guns. Complicating this analysis is the discovery of brain damage to the gunman resulting from his years as a grenade instructor in the Army.

In contrast to Michigan, where there was a clear line for prosecutors to follow in making their manslaughter case, it appears that in Maine the culpable parties are the proverbial “all of the above.” However, not only will it be interesting to see if specific changes regarding gun reform are implemented, the phrase “law enforcement should have moved ….” is an invitation to a lawsuit.

*“I want to emphasize that this was a senseless act of violence perpetrated on purely innocent people,” (Ottawa, Canada police chief Eric) Stubbs said. “I know our whole community is shocked and mourning this event.” In the USA, we use the same verbiage. What is unusual is that this was the area’s worst mass killing in over thirty years; the individual stabbed to death a mother and her four children plus one other individual. Whether there is legal liability should be tracked, given that Canada’s homicide rate is 2.3 per 100,000 people, one-third that of the USA.

Following the verdicts in Michigan and Virginia and the new indictment in Virginia, it will be informative to analyze, and chronicle, the depth of culpability in each of the mass shooting incidents (and other criminal acts involving guns as well). The ground has been broken for liability – pertinent to a person or persons or company not directly involved — to be assessed, without touching the constitutional third rail.

P.S. Tennessee will permit teachers to carry a concealed gun if they have 40 hours of training, a background check, and a psychological evaluation. Is this the best “reform” we can do? Insane!

Ground-breaking Liability Excluding Guns

The world of liability is seeing new entrants. The algorithm goes from existing business practice to liability to monetary damages to a change in business practice. This is the world within which the unique position of gun ownership exists. Can its constitutional heritage and protection continue in an environment where extended liability is being attached to a lengthening list of transgressions.

*CVS and other drug retailers did not know whether those pills they dispense were being used for a legitimate medical reason; nonetheless they had to be aware that oxycontin was being overprescribed, including on stolen scrip pads. The companies were found liable for their role in the country’s drug addiction problem and had to pay large fines.

Relatedly, in an attempt to disrupt the illicit drug supply chain, especially for the lethal fentanyl, the DEA is going after on-line retailers who sell $4,000 presses that can produce 5,000 pills an hour which look like legitimate drugs. The first settlement involved eBay, which paid $59 million. It is estimated that 70% of the 100,000 drug deaths in 2023 involved fentanyl.

*Heretofore, the NCAA made a boatload of money from college sports. The athletes got nothing except a free college education. Now these performers are getting paid, through NIL relationships, often funded by wealthy alumni. The next step is that of unionization. The Dartmouth basketball team, none of whom are on athletic scholarships (not allowed in the Ivy League) has voted to join SEIU Local 560. Graduate students and library workers at other institutions have opted for unions.

With unionization in non-traditional areas comes legal activity; admittedly the liability exposure is less clear unless blatantly illegal practices are deployed by those resisting the union.

*In another heretofore situation, legacy admissions to universities have been an accepted, and highly lucrative, business practice. Now, a few states have banned said policy. One can envision a lawyer putting together a class action suit on behalf of students denied admission because legacy applicants had been accepted to a point that all the theoretically open seats had been filled.

*It took decades but finally it happened: the National Association of Realtors, under intense pressure, settled a lawsuit that accused it of conspiracy to fix prices, aka the c.6% commission-splitting structure which had long been in place. Inclusive of payments made by individual real estate firms, the total is reportedly over $940 million. Given the liability attendant to the prior years of millions of people overpaying because of the price-fixing, additional lawsuits are underway.

*The bartender does not keep count of how many drinks a person imbibes, nor does he calculate the customer’s absorption rate based on their height and weight.  But his sense of whether a boozer has had too many is now subject to legal exposure, liability for subsequent actions by the customer.

Speculative Liability Situations

*Everybody knows that data are being collected on them from every piece of technology in their possession. What they don’t know in many cases is with whom that information is shared. The catch-all phrase on the paperwork signed by the customer, “information may be shared with third parties,” covers the waterfront, simultaneously saying something and saying nothing. An individual named Romeo Chicco recently pursued a violation of privacy action against General Motors; its app on Chicco’s car captured micro information about the driver, not simply about the operation of the car. This information was shared by GM with a data broker who sold the information to Chicco’s auto insurance company.

After disclosure that this was a widespread company policy earning GM millions, it opted to terminate its relationship with the data broker. Perhaps it will be liability from privacy infringement elsewhere in the transactional world that will bring change in the collection and use of data.

*A group of nuns has purchased stock in the gun maker, Smith and Wesson. Using their newfound voice, they have charged the company with putting its value at risk by an over-the-top macho marketing approach which basically implies that you are not a man if you do not own a gun. They are trying to get Smith and Wesson to change its ways and forestall possible liability exposure.

*In the area of franchise relationships, there is an attempt by the National Labor Relations Board to make big franchisers “responsible for the conditions of workers they had not hired directly.”

This was rejected in court as being too broad. The CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the NLRB rule was “related to workplaces they don’t control and workers they don’t actually employ.”

The liability issue in the franchise industry will resurface. The words used by the above CEO, with a couple of inconsequential changes, are the same as those used by Purdue Pharma, CVS, et al regarding drug addiction; those firms were found liable and paid large settlement amounts.

*Victims of the late Jeffrey Epstein are suing his financial advisors, essentially forcing them to answer the “who knew what and when” questions and their role in assisting Epstein to engage in criminal behavior. This is a uniquely interesting extension of liability exposure.

*A psychiatrist ran up a $400,000 gambling debt, aided and abetted by the relevant company eagerly soliciting her to continue betting. It is easy to ridicule the fact that it was a psychiatrist who was so irrational; it is less easy to dismiss the marketing message behind the extreme skew in the company’s business: they disclosed that 0.5% of their bettors were responsible for 70% of their revenues. Does a marketing approach which disproportionately takes advantage of targeted individuals have liability?

*In Switzerland, “a group of 2,000 elderly women brought a case claiming their government isn’t doing enough to fight climate change, putting them at risk of death from heat waves.” The European Court of Human Rights ruled 16-1 in their favor. Lawyers around the world are toasting the court.

A Unique Liability Situation

*How long will social media companies be able to hide behind Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act — which says online platforms are not liable for what is posted by third parties — as they offer their platforms to bad actors of all kinds. This is a question that is receiving additional attention because of social media’s purported role in facilitating the sale of illegal drugs, a hot button which resonates in a different way than mass shootings or the data on how many teenage suicides have links to, e.g., Facebook/Instagram material.

The U.S. Surgeon General himself has warned that social media could pose a profound risk of harm to young people’s mental health. The line from social media to reduced interpersonal contact to mental health challenges to increased suicide rates seems documentable, hopefully leading to some type of compromise other than, e.g., Facebook’s periodic bland assurances that it is trying hard to establish algorithms pertinent to user protection.

Banning TikTok gets a bigger hearing because it is a Chinese company; however, half of the American population are users of its platform so it is unclear how anti-TikTok legislation would square with minimal restrictions on US-based social media companies.

A young woman named Larissa May (reportedly formerly a heavy user of social media) is not waiting for social media to mend their ways. She has started a non-profit, Half the Story, “to repair the damage caused by … TikTok and Instagram.” It has a curriculum designed to engage students in the process of dealing with the allure of “infinite scroll, push notifications, and videos that play automatically,” the three biggest features that keep kids hooked.

Recently, the most publicized non-politician pushing for change in the world of social media is author Jonathan Haidt, “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness.” He advocates these specific reforms:

No smartphone before high school; basic phones are okay

No social media before 16; let the brains develop first

Schools should be phone-free zones: store them in student lockers

Bring back unsupervised play; develop social skills, become self-governing

Admittedly, rich settlements in the USA and Europe already have happened in the unique liability area of social media. Unfortunately, the financial position of many of these companies is such that they can write big checks while barely tweaking the algorithms and business practices which culminated in the liability in the first place.

Demonstrated Historical Liability Situations

Many of the liability situations described above are indirectly a consequence of inadequate or absent underlying legislation at the federal level. Part of the challenge involved in the newer liability interpretations, other than potentially constituting an end-run around complete deference to the original wording of the constitution, will be a continuous debate about where liability lies when negative outcomes ensue from situations that include multiple layers of responsibility, whether recognized or not.

Gun reform specifically may evolve less slowly than before as courts in different jurisdictions deliver verdicts stemming not from individual government rulings and appeals thereof, but from the liability attached to a business enterprise. Moreover, in somewhat parallel fashion, parents and educators should become more aware of potential liability given recent legal decisions.

Of course, liability cases per se are not new. What is noteworthy is that traditional cases continue while new ones are being added; there is no replacement effect. These are but a few examples:

*In Morris County, New Jersey, a whistleblower’s complaints about the state’s ownership and management of a psychiatric hospital have been ignored. Presumably the families of those who have been harmed (sometimes fatally) by the lack of a response to reported unsafe conditions will be filing lawsuits. Liability is clear.

*In 2017, John Barnett, a long-time Boeing employee complained that Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner was being rushed to production, that safety was being compromised. In return, Boeing slandered him and Barnett sued. The case was headed to court in 2024; when a Dreamliner had a “technical issue,” that thankfully only resulted in minor injuries, Barnett reportedly committed suicide.

In 2024, two more Boeing whistleblowers have gone public with complaints about Dreamliner production and safety compliance. This comes on the heels of numerous recent small incidents that have brought attention to the practices of both Boeing and several of its airline customers. It was not that long ago that two Boeing crashes (different model) resulted in a large number of deaths and major liability settlements by Boeing.

P.S. Boeing recently promoted a non-engineer to head its commercial aircraft division, changed its incentive compensation structure, and began the search for a new CEO. Meanwhile, it continues to lose business to rival Airbus, partly because the FAA has slowed Boeing’s production schedule in order to ensure that tightened quality standards are being met.

*Years back, pesticides used to control weeds had the unfortunate side effect of poisoning the product’s users, a piece of information not adequately disclosed as a risk in its marketing literature. Major liability resulted, money was paid, product formulations and marketing materials were changed. Normal process you might say.

*When Tesla’s marketing message oversold the capabilities of its Autopilot software, it could be claimed this is normal with new technological developments. Some would argue that the liability attached to the company’s aggressiveness will be substantial. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says there have been “at least 14 fatalities, several dozen injuries and 467 crashes.”

One case has been settled, the amount not disclosed.

*Norfolk Southern’s derailment in 2023 of a train carrying hazardous materials cost it a $600 million settlement with the affected town of East Palestine, Ohio. A lawsuit by the state’s attorney-general remains open; it alleges harm to the environment. Again, a normal unfolding of a liability situation.

*With the multi-decade demise of domestic manufacturing, union membership in the USA plummeted. Fast forward to current times, from Starbucks to Amazon to Disneyland to the more traditional auto industry target, there is increased interest in unionization. This now includes the historically non-union South, e.g., Tennessee, where the UAW recently won an election at a Volkswagen plant.

As a general comment, the use of courts (and violence, however defined) has long been a characteristic of corporations resisting unionization. Litigation historically has been dominated by suits against unfair actions by employers, both prior to and during unionization campaigns. Settlements are contractual wage increases and improved benefits.

The bottom line: 2023 saw more successful union elections than in any year since 2000.

C. The aggregate responses to my Gun Survey have been posted. These are my responses.

 (1) What is the feeling among foreign countries toward the USA gun situation?

*they are stunned at what we accept in terms of deaths by guns.

(2) Historical: the right to bear arms

*individuals with three felonies on their record should not be allowed to purchase any guns.

*individuals with repeated violations of domestic violence orders should not have guns.

*individuals should be subject to a thorough background check and required to undergo training.

(3) Contemporary School-based Strategies

*None of the options were appropriate.

(4) The Gun Business

*dealers who sell guns disproportionately involved in crimes should have their licenses revoked.

*if drug retailers have been found liable for their participation in overprescribing opioids and thus contributing to addiction, gun dealers should have comparable legal exposure.

(5) Why the USA is different

*the country was born in violence and has had few periods of time when violence was absent.

*it is more concerned with individual rights than are its counterparts.

*it desires to maintain a historical right even as other historical situations have been rectified.

(6) Regarding your current community, would you rather:

*have neighbors you trust, regardless of their gun ownership.

(7) With respect to age:

*there should be a minimum age of 21.

*until the head of a household is at least 30, there should be a limit of one gun per household.

(8) The political reaction to mass shootings is:

*a belief that governments can do nothing about the situation.

*a repeat of the saying that “guns do not kill people, only people kill people.”

*a flood of opinion editorials from reform advocates.

(9) The local reaction to mass shootings at schools is:

*initial or renewed interest in gun reform.

*receipt of an influx of money from elsewhere.

*greater attention to the need for mental health counselors.

*disbelief that it could happen in their community.

*outrage at the inability of law enforcement to minimize the damage, i.e., the body count.

*debate over the particulars of a suitable memorial for the victims.

(10) Regarding a hypothetical community with half the median income of your current area and with half the population being minority, would you rather:

*the composition of the neighborhood has no bearing on my attitude toward guns.

(11) The second Amendment has communal language as well as individual rights.

The former reads: “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”

In reading this, what is your reaction:

*it provides precedent for laws regarding open carry that enhance security for all.

(12) There were 45,000 gun deaths in 2022. Which is the correct breakdown:

*54% suicides, 43% homicides, 1% accidents, 2% law enforcement

(13) Assume a Red Flag Situation, in which an individual discloses to their psychiatrist they have on-going anger issues and are thinking of shooting somebody. The psychiatrist:

*does nothing.  (This should be changed)

*tells the police.

*asks the patient if there are guns in their house

Assume the police have received the information above. They:

*do nothing. (This should be changed)

*tell a judge.

*look at the patient’s criminal record and see if there is reasonable cause to arrest them.

*refer the matter to an existing committee of mental health and police professionals.

Assume the judge has received the information above. They:

*do nothing. (This should be changed)

*issue a warrant for the individual’s arrest. (Perhaps not arrest but confiscation of weapons)

*issue a ruling empowering the police to remove weapons from the patient’s house.

*issue a ruling that puts the patient on a “cannot buy guns” list sent to every gun dealer in the state.

(14) The number of guns in circulation is (in millions)

*415

(15) In 2005, the federal ban on selling AR-15 type assault weapons ended. Since then, how many of these guns have been sold (in millions)

*25

(16) Which line represents gun ownership rate per 100 population for USA, Yemen, Serbia:

*121, 53, 39

(17) A parent:

*Has responsibility for any child of mine up to age 25 who is living in my house

*if my child, whether living with me or not, is making violent threats, I must report it

*if my child, whether living with me or not, is seeing a mental health professional and making violent threats, I must report it

*If my child is making violent threats and there are guns in the house, I must report it

kuu9900(18) Concerning rising suicide rates and guns:

*greater availability of guns has meant more suicides.

 

 

 

 

 

At a certain stage in life, even as you might attempt to swallow the phrase, it will slip from your mouth: “back in the day” – and your conversational partner will immediately recognize that a walk down memory lane is about to commence. They may smile politely, perhaps stifling a grimace in the process, or they may roll their eyes. Occasionally, okay – rarely, they will be eager to learn about your experience. Meanwhile, you are thinking about alternatives to the above pet phrase: would

“you remember when” be better or “once upon a time?” Not really. So—————-

 

Back in the day, in a typical mid-sized suburban community, there often would be a convergence of the two most important local roads, culminating in an intersection where a wide variety of small local businesses and services were distributed among the four corners.

 

Today, that four corner imagery has been rendered obsolete. Interstate highways have both extended the consumer’s reach and homogenized the store landscape. The corporatization of America has made it difficult for the single location entrepreneur to compete. And now every product imaginable can be delivered to your door, either that of your car or of your house.

 

Enter the new four corners line-up: McDonald’s, Starbucks, Urgent Care, and Generic Smoke Shop.

 

With all due respect to the Egg McMuffin, the story of McDonald’s is one of managements ability, and that of its franchisees, to operate thousands of outlets around the world without anybody being mystified about what to expect from Mickey D’s. People value that purchase/product predictability to the point where healthy eating considerations are buried. The fries are too good, when hot that is.

 

Starbucks’ success is part psychology, part product, and part snobbism. A cup of coffee actually costs pennies to make; as a store offering, its price should be a dollar or two. As a Starbucks coffee, its dramatically higher price reflects the must-have special stuff added to the beans and the sense of socialization available to those customers sitting solo with their laptops and lattes.

 

Urgent Care is the satellite healthcare location for that big hospital a couple of miles away. If one believes cost to the patient will be lower because the facility has less overhead, a smaller staff, and a reduced list of medical capabilities, think again. Urgent Care, even if technically a “non-profit,” is run under the same bottom line business principles as any profit-seeking enterprise.

 

Generic Smoke Shop is, for now, a local entrepreneurial interloper. It sells products that not long ago were either illegal or frowned upon. It is an easy entry business, even with the cost of regulatory compliance, and as a result, it is highly fragmented. In time, there will be a consolidation; some proprietors will have decided they would rather smoke their product than sell it. If they have signed a good lease and generated a modicum of goodwill, they have an asset that is attractive to the prospective Big Smoke Shop Company, which will feel right at home with their neighbors.

 

The new four corners is recognizable to everybody, including those passing through as a result of an interstate highway exit. Only a cynic would point out that if you frequent McDonald’s or Starbucks or Generic Smoke Shop too much, you are on your way to becoming a customer of Urgent Care. Only somebody fondly (and selectively, for sure) recalling “back in the day” would yearn for

Joe’s Hamburgers, Mary’s Coffee Place, Sal’s Cigarette Store, or Doc Franklin.

 

 

Ah yes, the existential question: who am I? And its accompaniment: why am I here?

Resolving the second question will require a different essay and the finest effort of the newly formed

AI community. One can envision an ultra-fast search for answers that will take us factually back to our very origins and philosophically through a lengthy list of erudite theories, perhaps culminating in a futuristic world that includes multiple individual options ala “Dark Matter.”

Fortunately, TechnoWorld, bless their irreligious souls, has brought us an answer to “Who am I.”

We are the embodiment of a list of characteristics designed so that we may function, buy stuff, and interact according to the rules laid down by TechnoWorld.

We are:

Algorithms that tell us who we are … for transactional purposes

No-reply messages … for one-way agreements

Portals … to depersonalize relationships

Default decisions … the information is too complicated to separately analyze

Likes … of people, products, ideas we know nothing about except as per TechnoWorld

Data Points that represent the numbers by which we live … as per the algorithms thus created

Phone prompts designed to drive us back to the website … or insane

Clicks that make decisions really easy … and profitable to TechnoWorld

Log ins, Log outs … the rhythm of our daily routine

 

We are that which is displayed on a screen. We need not even react; the software of our I-devices knows us and takes our hand so that we may, after some twists and turns, deposit money in the bank account of TechnoWorld. There can be no substantive complaint if something goes awry; we accepted those multi-page agreements of legalese between us as individuals and trillion dollar corporations.

Human contact is minimized in the relationship with TechnoWorld.

There is no stress, as conventionally defined, in the process of an on-line life per se. However, it is becoming more widely recognized that  acceptance of an on-line life as being normal produces stress that is being baked into the individual’s psyche. There is no longer the sense of real community, of the personal interaction which leads to growth and a life of true richness.

And there is nowhere to hide from TechnoWorld.

 

 

Once upon a time, we had slavery. It was an excellent business strategy because it drastically reduced labor costs, thereby increasing profits.

Once upon a time, women could not vote. Another excellent idea as they could then focus their energies on making babies and putting a good hot meal in front of their families.

Once upon a time, the guaranty that a person could have a firearm was equally logical. Muskets had to be at the ready for hunting, for chasing away them varmints, for protection if the government turned tyrannical, and, yes, for shooing away those who objected to a person pushing west for more land.

Fast forward.

Having decided that slavery was, you know, on the sleazy side of human interaction, we chucked it; unfortunately, racism has not been so easy to eradicate – but that’s for another essay.

After considerable bitching and moaning, men decided to let women vote. Disconcertingly, they are now moving ahead in all fields, even business. Not to worry, though, control is still male.

In some ways, the most undiluted progress has been with firearms. Very few individuals hunt to put food on the table, the varmint problem is not a real issue to most, and the land situation is a defensive, not offensive situation. Yet we can pick up an AR-15 and blow an entire classroom away before this sentence is finished.

**

Once upon a time, men and women collaborated to produce multiple babies. The infant death rate made this mandatory if a family was to have the critical mass needed to get work done. It also meant that a concept like the mental health of children had no relevance.

Once upon a time, the issue of which drugs were legal, which passed the standards of Western medicine, which represented the beliefs of underdeveloped countries – all was crystal clear.

Once upon a time, you knew your neighbors, even when geographically distant because of the large farms involved. You might get ticked off if a lazy mule wandered onto your property, but you were more likely to demonstrate your displeasure by kicking its ass than by scurrying to get your musket.

Fast forward.

Fertility rates are basically at replacement levels, we are acutely aware of how mental health is a serious issue at all age levels, it is difficult to draw the line between legal and illegal drugs, and farms have been sold to giant agri-businesses. But I can still get my AR-15 because of its direct lineage to that trusty musket owned by our forefathers. (Wait, are we actually getting prepared for a tyrannical government … yipes, that’s another essay idea … and a truly scary thought!)

**

Neighbors — what/who are they? I know somebody lives next door and I wave when its unavoidable, but that’s it. When I trot out my AR-15 and eliminate a bunch of lives, I know my neighbors can be counted upon to tell the world, “I didn’t really know him.”

Community leaders will be on point with the truism, “we are shocked that this massacre could happen in our town of good law-abiding, hard-working people.”

Politicians will run to the nearest camera and, from opposite points on the political spectrum, proclaim “we must pass legislation,” and “the availability of an AR-15 has nothing to do with this tragedy.” Non-profit foundations and public-minded companies and citizens alike will provide money, food, and gift cards to the families affected.

Eventually, after the inevitable gun reform discussion, the cry will go up in the political arena, “we tried, but………….” On the other hand, funds will be available for more security devices and trained personnel at schools. And we will encourage the formation of committees – police and mental health professionals – who will meet to assess when a red flag is to be waved.

**

Isn’t change wonderful!

 

As a parent grieves over the loss of a child, she can console herself by thinking about all the changes that have taken place in her life and in society since the parent’s birth. Too bad that their child did not live long enough to see any change from our reverence for that musket … and the AR-15.

 

This survey of twenty questions created by the author was sent to 63 people, of whom 28 responded. Some chose more than one answer. Some struggled with understanding whether their response was about “what is” or “what should be.” The instructions could have been clearer. Results are being posted on my blog and being sent to each respondent.

                                         

 

1. What is the feeling among foreign countries toward the USA gun situation?

 

*they do not care.                [1]

*they are stunned at what we accept in terms of deaths by guns.     [24]

*they wonder when their own outbreaks might happen.           [1]

*they respect the American reasoning regarding gun rights.      [0]

*they know the USA is highly individualistic so are not surprised at the results.    [6]

 

Respondent Comment: They are surprised that the USA suffers from a lot of mass shootings; they do not think it is a gun problem but more of a mental health problem.

 

Author’s Comment: There is an overwhelming consensus in the answer to this question.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Historical: the right to bear arms

 

*at the time of it becoming a right, the available armament was a musket; the right now extends to any make of firearm that has been invented since then.  [13]

*individuals should be allowed to purchase bump stocks that convert semi-automatics to automatics.           [0]

*individuals with three felonies on their record should not be allowed to purchase any guns.           [10]

*individuals with repeated violations of domestic violence orders should not be allowed to have guns.         [19]

*individuals buying guns should sign a document indicating their reason for wanting a gun.             [6]

*individuals should be allowed to carry guns openly in public places.      [0]

*individuals should be subject to a thorough background check and required to undergo training.     [18]

 

Respondent Comment: There should be a mental health screening.

 

Author’s Comment: There is much support here for different restrictions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Contemporary School-based Strategies

 

*all students should be trained in handling guns.         [4]

*every school should have a metal detector at the entrance.     [11]

*teachers should carry guns.             [1]

*parents should be required to receive active shooter training.                [6]

*none of the above             [4]

*no answer            [3]

 

Respondents Comments: (a) Students and schools are the victims here. No teachers should have to carry guns in order to teach academic content. Schools are suffering with this issue because no collective will exists to deal with gun control. (b) School personnel should be trained in dealing with crises, including shooter situations. There should be protocols for getting a fast police response. (c) I’m not sure I see the appropriate strategy nor what the right one should be. I would prefer for armed security guards to be on school premises. Submit teachers to an extensive background check and allowed to have access to a gun (not so sure). (d) Federal and state funding should be allocated to researching root causes of school violence and implementing curbing measures.

 

Author’s Comment: Lots of frustration is evident in the answers, non-answers, and comments.

 

1. The Gun Business

 

*all dealers should be treated equally.            [7]

*dealers who sell guns that are disproportionately involved in crimes should have their licenses revoked.     [9]

*dealers have nothing to do with how their product is used.     [6]

*if drug retailers have been found liable for their participation in overprescribing opioids and thus contributing to addiction, gun dealers should have the same legal exposure.               [18]

*there is regulation of ghost guns; a lower court had said, “a weapon parts kit is not a firearm.”      [0]

*technological changes, e.g., a smart gun that can only be fired by its owner, will become widespread.          [1]

 

Respondent Comment: All dealers should have to meet major requirements to become dealers and should be required to have very strict regulations on who they sell guns to.

 

Author’s Comment: In light of current litigation trends, the biggest response is apropos.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Why the USA is different

 

*the country was born in violence and has had few periods of time when violence was absent.       [5]

*it is more concerned with individual rights than are its counterparts.    [14]

*people come to this country to be safer; having a gun is consistent with this motivation.                 [2]

*it desires to maintain a historical right even as other historical situations have been rectified.         [9]

*it is fearful that the evident rancorous political split eventually will lead to violence.         [7]

*it predominantly treats drug addiction as a crime, not a health problem.             [10]

*its extreme financial inequality inevitably means a desire for retribution and the use of guns.        [2]

*NRA’s outgoing president, now accused of misusing funds, quintupled membership from 1991 to 2023. [8]

 

Respondents Comments: (a) Gun ownership is a Constitutional amendment; it is ridiculously hard to change. (b) In the USA, there are no citizenship obligations (mandatory service) ala Switzerland and Israel. (c) The right to bear arms against aggressive, capricious, overweening government (monarchic) authority was encoded in the DNA of the country and was further built into the confederate states pre and post civil war. And the modern Tea Party/anti-government parties and players continue to worry about invasion of their homes and therefore there’s no political will to mess with the core. (d) Mental health is a HUGE issue in this country.

 

Author’s Comment: A wide variety of thoughts about this question are evident.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Regarding your current community, would you rather:

 

*live in one without any guns.          [16]

*live in one with a gun in every house.           [1]

*have neighbors you trust, regardless of their gun ownership.    [10]

*have a restriction on what type of gun your neighbor could own.          [9]

 

Author’s Comment: The preference is clear.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

1. With respect to age:

 

*if you can die for the country at 18, you should be allowed to have a gun.           [5]

*there should be a minimum age of 21.         [8]

*until the head of a household is at least 30, there should be a limit of one gun per household.       [5]

*each state should set its own age requirement, and it need not connect to other age restrictions.                 [5]

*no answer            [5]

 

Respondents Comments: (a) I don’t agree much with any since I don’t believe guns should be allowed to be purchased, but since that is the case, then the head of household option is what I would pick. (b) Brain development isn’t finished until age 25 I think. That would be a good minimum age and there should be a restriction on the quantity and types of guns. (c) Nobody should own a gun unless they are in the military or a police force. (d) Gun ownership should be consistent with science regarding brain formation and the capacity to make responsible decisions that take into account consequences.

 

Author’s Comment: The comments bring science into the mix of decision making.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. The political reaction to mass shootings is:

 

*no response.       [4]

*a belief that governments can do nothing about the situation.               [8]

*outrage by gun reform advocates.  [15]

*a belief that the NRA has 4.2 million members and will make any substantive legal changes impossible.      [7]

*a repeat of the saying that “guns do not kill people, only people kill people.”      [13]

*a flood of opinion editorials from reform advocates.                  [5]

 

Respondent Comment: Thoughts and Prayers.

 

Author’s Comment: Multiple words, minimal actions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. The local reaction to mass shootings at schools is:

 

*initial or renewed interest in gun reform.     [15]

*receipt of an influx of money from elsewhere.             [2]

*greater attention to the need for mental health counselors.    [10]

*disbelief that it could happen in their community.      [15]

*outrage at the inability of law enforcement to minimize the damage, i.e., the body count.              [6]

*debate over the particulars of a suitable memorial for the victims.        [1]

 

Author’s Comment: Societally there is more focus on mental health.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Regarding a hypothetical community with half the median income of your current area and with half the population being minority, would you rather:

 

*live there with nobody owning a gun.           [12]

*live there with every house having a gun.    [2]

*the composition of the neighborhood has no bearing on my attitude toward guns.           [16]

*have a restriction on what type of gun your neighbor could own.          [8]

 

Author’s Comment: Belief that the composition of the neighborhood has no bearing is inconsistent with other studies of how people react to changed environments.

 

1. The second Amendment has communal language as well as individual rights.

The former reads: “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”

In reading this, what is your reaction:

 

*it does not change any of my underlined material above.         [16]

*it provides precedent for laws regarding open carry that enhance security for all.             [2]

*gun ownership makes us all safer.  [0]

*anybody can pick certain historical language to justify any position they wish to take.       [14]

 

Respondents Comments: (a) The lines between state and federal are so blurred that this does not make sense in today’s discerning of what the security of a free state means.(b) Mass shootings and individual shootings by handgun users are the cost of protection against government takeover.

 

Author’s Comment: Contrary to the responses above, it is the “precedent” response that is being folded into the on-going case for gun reform.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2022. There were 45,000 gun deaths in 2022. Which is the correct breakdown:

 

*half suicides, 40% homicides, 10% other.      [5]

*half homicides, 20% suicides, 10% accidents, 20% law enforcement.      [2]

*54% suicides, 43% homicides, 1% accidents, 2% law enforcement          [10]

*suicides plus homicides: 60%, 20% accidents, 20% law enforcement.     [7]

*no answer           [4]

 

Author’s Comment: The correct answer was chosen by ten respondents.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Assume what is called a Red Flag Situation, in which an individual discloses to their psychiatrist that they have on-going anger issues and are thinking of shooting somebody. The psychiatrist:

 

*does nothing.     [4]

*tells the police.       [14]

*tells the police only if the statement by the patient is repeated three times. [3]

*asks the patient if there are guns in their house         [16]

 

Respondent Comment: Depends on the gun laws where the psychiatrist practices, could be any of the responses above are what actually happen; I would want the guns unavailable to the patient at least for a time.

 

Author’s Comment: It is unclear what the psychiatrist should do, seemingly even when red flag procedures have been openly discussed.

 

Assume the police have received the information above. They:

 

*do nothing.         [6]

*tell a judge.         [4]

*put a patrol car at the patient’s house.         [2]

*look at the patient’s criminal record and see if there is reasonable cause to arrest them.    [7]

*refer the matter to an existing committee of mental health and police professionals.        [14]

 

Respondents Comments: (a) Tell a judge and request that the guns be confiscated. (b) Threats should be investigated and patients questioned; guns should be removed due to history and threats. (c) Tell a judge in order to execute a search warrant. If a minor, open communication with parent(s) and school.

 

Author’s Comment: The lead answer needs to have a sense of urgency; time can be of the essence.

 

Assume the judge has received the information above. They:

 

*do nothing          [6]

*issue a warrant for the individual’s arrest.    [3]

*issue a ruling empowering the police to remove weapons from the patient’s house.         [16]

*issue a ruling that puts the patient on a “cannot buy guns” list sent to every gun dealer in the state.            [15]

 

Respondents Comments: (a) Issue a ruling empowering the police to conduct a search warrant, and if warranted, remove weapons from the patient’s house. (b) Issue a ruling committing the patient to at least a 72-hour hold allowing the person to talk about their issues.

 

Author’s Comment: The preference in these responses is for action to be taken.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. The number of guns in circulation is (in millions):

 

*262       [1]

*312       [2]

*415       [14]

*506       [9]

*no answer           [2]

 

Author’s Comment: The top response number is accurate.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. In 2005, the federal ban on selling AR-15 type assault weapons ended. Since then, how many of these guns have been sold (in millions):

*14         [1]

*52         [9]

*36         [5]

*25         [12]

*no answer           [1]

 

Author’s Comment: The top response number is accurate.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Which line represents the gun ownership rate per 100 population for USA, Yemen, Serbia:

 

*82, 46, 112          [2]

*121, 53, 39          [25]

*54, 89, 101          [1]

 

Author’s Comment: The top response number is accurate.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ .                       S. A parent:

*Has no responsibility for any child of mine who is at least 18 years of age and therefore an adult                 [1]

*Has responsibility for any child of mine up to age 25 who is living in my house                  [6]

*if my child, whether living with me or not, is seeing a mental health professional, I must report it                                [2]

*if my child, whether living with me or not, is making violent threats, I must report it        [12]

*if my child, whether living with me or not, is seeing a mental health professional and making violent threats, I must report it                [12]

*If guns in my house are properly stored under lock and key, I need not report anything, regardless of what my child is saying                [0]

*If my child is making violent threats and there are guns in the house, I must report it      [10]

 

Author’s Comment: There is lack of clarity on the responsibility of the parent. However, a recent court case did find a mother guilty of involuntary manslaughter when it was her son who had pulled the trigger.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Concerning rising suicide rates and guns:

 

*there is no connection.     [3]

*greater availability of guns has meant more suicides.                [24]

*if people simply locked up their guns, there would be fewer suicides.   [2]

 

Respondents Comments: (a) The guns make the suicide quicker; however, if a person wants to commit suicide, they will find a way no matter if a gun is not available. (b) Suicides will happen regardless of whether or not guns are available.

 

Author’s Comment: what is missing in the question is the issue of rates of suicide intention versus actual suicides and whether ease of obtaining guns means the carried out rate is greater than would otherwise be the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thoughts from a Layman

Publications which inform my daily reading, in hard copy if the truth be told, are the

“Wall Street Journal” and the “New York Times.” I hereby request forgiveness for not littering everything below with footnotes; besides, an occasional thought is unique to the undersigned.

Weaving every discussion item into a logical flow, replete with extended examples, is a challenge suitable for a book format, not for this modest essay. One would have to figure out which comes first, the chicken or the egg, the good intention or the unfortunate outcome, the theory or the evidence, mental health challenges or the consequences thereof.

Moreover, as a well-known advocate of school choice once said, and it’s true about many policy debates, “it ain’t about the research, it’s about the will.”

Most often, conversations about meaningful reforms simply beg the unwritten but pervasive question: do those with money/power, living in a different world, care? Are they are only energized when an issue hits close to home or they begin pondering whether they want to be the richest person in the cemetery.

Drug Reform

Drugs as defined here are those whose usage traditionally has been deemed illegal. Excessive consumption of legal drugs has its own downside, but historically that has suggested a separate set of factors. However, as the lines increasingly become blurred, that prior separation will be a distinction that is not much of a difference.

Data Points

*Drug overdoses in the past 24 years have killed more Americans than all its wars combined. There are an estimated 48 million individuals with a substance disorder; one in 20 are getting help.

*Half of those in criminal court and half of those in jail or prison have a substance use disorder. Some 15% of inmates are said to have an opioid use disorder specifically.  (Meanwhile, the Sackler family is content with the $10 billion they took out of Purdue Pharma in 2008-17; the debate about who gets what from its settlement money of $6 billion does not touch the prior withdrawals. The Sacklers should not receive lifetime immunity, given the deadly consequences of their marketing of opioids.)

Discussion Comments

*There should be a clear acknowledgement that prior large-scale efforts, both in this country and elsewhere, have been a waste of money, with no impact on drug addiction. This is the negative lead.

*The positive lead is that there is knowledge of what works programmatically yet there is insufficient money and staffing for that success. Medication, behavioral therapy, and counseling are reportedly as effective as statins are for cholesterol or aspirin regarding heart attacks.

Methadone (introduced in 1972) is proven to be effective; however, doctors and pharmacists can only prescribe it for pain. Addicted individuals must go to a specialized clinic.  P.S. It would be helpful for medical schools to require addiction training.

*There is a choice to be made: treat all the social ills that perhaps foster addiction (admittedly a desirable goal) or call it a health issue and proceed accordingly. Only the latter makes sense in terms of a direct approach, inclusive of evidence-based programs and reasonable timeframes.

*Accompanying the health-based approach to drug reform should be on-going, clear, succinct publicizing of the dramatic negative statistics associated with addiction. Probably a coalition of healthcare and police professionals should produce the document to avoid it being politicized. PSA material should be provided to all forms of the media.

*A distinction must be made between usage and addiction.

*Health insurance coverage, inclusive of Medicare and Medicaid, will be needed without squabbling. Society pays either way.

*There should be no hesitancy on funding treatment programs of all kinds, including those based in churches which do not use mainstream approaches,  or others like AA which have a spiritual component.

*A special program is needed for those whose addiction is directly tied to a conflict-based PTSD diagnosis. It must be organized, managed, and led by veterans and specialists in the field.

*The existence of different states having different laws with respect to marijuana should be recognized as a positive. This diversity, properly researched (control group test comparisons), should shed light on the impact of marijuana usage, its relevance as a gateway drug, specific results regarding addiction, connection to mental health, and ties to improper driving. (People crossing state lines and entering different jurisdictions may confuse the data a little, as would inconsistent legal enforcement.)

*Clarity on what is a crime and what is an illness is a necessity.

*There is no safe usage amount for fentanyl; there are no long-term users, unlike the case with heroin.*While it is controversial whether drug addicts must be compelled to seek treatment, it seems logical that if addiction leads to negative social behavior, the public has an interest in requiring treatment. Similarly, if insurance is to play a pivotal role in thinking about addiction as a health issue, it is fair for the insurer to have some requirements, e.g., enrollment in a rehab program. The latter should have length to it; history indicates that short-term stints are highly correlated with relapses.

Police Reform

Somewhere along the analytical and social policy line, there should be thought given to the impact of single-parent families, more specifically, the absent father situation and its connection to other reforms. Prisons are not populated by large numbers of educated, non-drug using individuals from intact families.

Data Points

The FBI’s classification called Violent Index Felonies (murder/non-negligent manslaughter, robbery, rape, aggravated assault) has a 45% clearance rate.  Property Index Felonies (burglary, larceny theft, motor vehicle theft, arson) have a 17% clearance rate. Who said that crime does not pay! The irony is that it is not uncommon for people who are jaundiced about the police in general to simultaneously want them to be more forceful in their neighborhood, protecting the stores which they patronize and which may be owned or at least managed by individuals known to the community.

Drug law offenders comprise 15% of state prisoners, which in turn are 90% of total prisoners in the country’s system of incarceration. About 20% of drug offenders are out within six months; another 25% are out in months seven through twelve. (Obvious note: drug reform and police reform are inextricably linked, as is gun reform (and approaches to interacting with the homeless population).

The rate of prisoners having Anti-social Personality Disorder (ASPD) is ten times the average for all adults. Rates of substance use disorder (SUD) are similarly far above the average. See above comment plus the need for more mental health counselors in general. There is something called the criminogenic effect: incarceration which leads to more crime after the release of the prisoner. With the above changes, this should be reduced.

Over 40% of Americans either own a firearm or live with somebody who does. Gun reform is therefore a related necessity. Maybe the lawsuit brought by a group of nuns will prove useful; the death of innocents seems to have no effect on the NRA and gun manufacturer executives. Perhaps some police departments would welcome different gun laws or simply stronger enforcement of existing regulations, given the underpublicized nature of single fatality gunshot situations.

Discussion Comments

Acknowledge the poor reputation that police departments have among the minority population, particularly African Americans. The root causes of this disaffection are multi-layered and multi-generational. This writing is not intended to be a deep dive into the history of policing in America. Suffice it to say that anybody who does not realize there is a problem is living a sheltered, advantaged life. The creation of trust is critical.

*Have an annual Report to the Public that is discussed at an Open House. This report would be from each police department, making it readily understandable by the relevant constituency.

*Establish an internal disciplinary threshold, based on frequency and severity, that elicits the public release of a policeman’s status.

*Create a position for a Mental Health specialist pertinent to the use of red flag guidelines. Mental health is right there at the police department intersection of drug and homeless reform.

*End the practice of paying bonuses based on the number of traffic or parking tickets issued.

*Implement as many neighborhood patrols without guns as feasible.

*As a policy, there must be extended talking preceding any use of guns, unless a life is threatened.

*Similarly, police must be trained to shoot to incapacitate, not to kill.

*Oversight boards must have direct access to, e.g., footage from police videos. Many had thought the routine use of cameras would reduce the number of “awkward” police-individual interactions, but often the police have been reluctant to release the video on a timely basis or even at all.

Homelessness Reform

In a separate essay, an update on UBI (Universal Basic Income) enumerates the many ways in which a UBI would be beneficial. While it does not specifically discuss an impact on homelessness, the significance of a UBI is apparent. Between requiring a homeless person to access a long list of social services as a requirement for financial assistance and providing that person UBI funds for their own decision-making, the preference at the outset would be the latter. Only if the chosen path were clearly negative would the homeless person be pulled back into a set of required social services.

Data Points

“The federal programs for public housing, including Section 8 and Housing Choice Vouchers, serve 287,000 fewer households than they did at the peak in 2004.” The number of eligible households without aid has grown dramatically. Even subsidized apartments built with Low Income Housing Tax Credits are above the affordability level of former prospective occupants.

*What is “affordable” housing? It’s simply math, with a bunch of variables. If the rent limit is 30% of income and the latter is $20,000 per year, then the monthly rent has to be a maximum of $500. The only way that a builder can put up such a structure is if there is a waiver concerning a dizzying array of zoning laws and building regulations, none involving a definition of safety that a low income person would care about. Tax incentives are part of the mix, but here again there is the core question: does society care enough to absorb some discomfort in treating the issue of homelessness. The pervasiveness of NIMBY suggests the answer is negative.

*New York City’s Department of Social Services has an astounding 600 sites operating under non-profit contracts. The count of specialized mental health shelters is 37. There is a mental health data base, PSYCKES, but shelter workers cannot access it.

Discussion Comments

*Acknowledge that the reasons behind a person, or a family, becoming homeless are incredibly complex. A safe place to live is the necessary but insufficient condition to “solving” homelessness.

*There need to be zoning changes, with easier access to permits for mobile homes and the new category of tiny homes. This is particularly critical outside of tight urban areas. Factory-built housing is cheaper and can be done faster, but thus far accounts for a tiny segment of total housing production.

*Mental health facilities must be expanded at the community level and they must be accommodating to those with drug addiction health issues. Presumptively, the more that homeless people have a safe abode, their stress level will decline somewhat and their mental situations will be improved. That many will still need relevant social services, and job training in many instances, is a given.

*If a homeless person is receiving financial assistance for their residence, they must abide by any mandatory social service requirement.

*Analytically, as always, there is the challenge of patient privacy versus the public’s right to information needed to evaluate the pros and cons of different reform efforts. Understaffing leads to triage decisions, but evidence-based decision-making is still the goal.

Under Kendra’s Law in New York, doctors can petition a judge to force mentally ill people into treatment if (1) they have lashed out once within the prior four years or (2) been hospitalized twice in three years for failing to follow their treatment plan. If the petition is granted, the person gets medication and monitoring by specialists. Without this, there can be no medication against a person’s will.

*SCOTUS has taken on a case in which “it will decide whether it is constitutional for municipalities  to prohibit homeless people from camping in public places when they have nowhere else to go.”

*Education — broadly defined as everything from a one-week course on being a restaurant server to enrolling in a four-year college, from learning to run a rudimentary machine to getting updated on the profession that once might have been relevant to the homeless person — should be required if a homeless person is receiving financial assistance.

*Homeless families have the right to keep their children enrolled in their initial school, even when families move. (It’s interesting that this category of families in effect has school choice, while the non-homeless family does not have that right. But that’s for a different essay, about education reform.)

*In the new residence, no guns should be permitted. (There is a broad reform area not discussed in this piece, namely that of guns overall.)

Relevant Programs

The brainchild of a committed individual, Austin has a Community First! Village, consisting of 200 sq.ft. homes. Bathrooms and kitchens are communal. The goal ultimately is to have permanent housing for half of the city’s homeless population. Rent is $385 per month, a low number except not in the context of average incomes of $900/month.

Single-room occupancy (SRO) facilities have a mixed to negative reputation. A modernized version called PadSplit rents rooms for $100 a week; median income is $30,000; average age is 35. Since 28% of households are single-occupant situations, PadSplit makes sense. Whether it has great relevance to homelessness per se is not yet evident.

Nevada Cares Campus is comprised of a large tent and low-priced modular living quarters. The homeless count in Reno has been reduced, but the residences alone would not have moved the needle; help in finding jobs and/or accessing social services is part of the program.

Houston is labeled a homeless success story. Its lack of regulation means a $200,000 one-bedroom house can be built, a fraction of the cost in most major cities. Its approach includes services designed to keep formerly homeless people in their new residences. And apparently, the political powers and the non-profit community are more in synch than is typically the case. The estimated cost of reducing the homeless population is $13,000 for the residence and $7,000 for case management. Landlords receive an incentive fee of $1,600 per unit. The Way Home Houston has 100 of these units.

 

Prior to a few days ago, I would have suggested that if you wanted to have your head hurt about the complexities of immigration, reading the schematic and article, “How to Fix America’s Immigration Crisis,” by Steven Rattner and Maureen White in the “New York Times” of January 14, 2024 was perfect.

Briefly there was a competitor for a migraine: a bipartisan border bill with a doubtful outlook, not because of its intrinsic qualities, but because Trump is urging his Senate followers in Congress not to support it. He hopes to use an unresolved border immigration issue as a big weapon against Biden in the upcoming election campaign, a rematch desired by approximately nobody.

Newsflash: the bill was DOA before it touched the floor of that august institution known as the Senate, where the votes were not there to advance it. Four months of bipartisan negotiation gone, poof!

Negotiation of the border bill brings to mind the saying that there are two things you do not want to witness being made: sausage and laws. How does funding for Ukraine or Israel tie to America’s immigration situation. It doesn’t, only as pawns (more like knights actually) in a political game of chess.

To make myself knowledgeable on this bill (maybe a bit of understanding will be useful in the future, who knows), I stacked up a bunch of newspaper articles and then put them aside in favor of watching a webinar by the American Immigration Council (AIC). In case you had no knowledge of AIC’s advocacy position, their body language, selection of verbiage (hefty dose of “supposedly”) and laughter at various components of the bill provided an accurate clue.

Anyway, here is what I learned (or maybe not; it is a touch confusing, and maybe it’s all moot, pending an election between two individuals who should age out of public life): if an average of 4,000 people walked across the border in a seven-day period, then a Border Engagement Authority would be activated and certain procedural steps would be taken concerning asylum seekers in particular. They might be slotted for a Reasonable Fear Interview or a Credible Fear Interview, each of which affects the asylum officer’s appraisal on whether they have a serious issue back in the home country and each of which affects the odds that said officer will say, “welcome to America,” and instruct them to pick up another form over there or on the phone or somewhere within reach. And the immigrant must be careful all along; a question answered differently on two pieces of paper and a return plane ticket may be the outcome. This is labeled “perpetual risk.”

In the interest of “streamlining” the process under the deceased bill, asylum officers will have a maximum of 90 days to put the asylee in the right category; if they are moved from category A to category B, there is another 90-day limit. Accomplishing this (from any rational bureaucrat’s lips to God’s ears) required a bit of a trade-off: the asylum officer now would have basically judicial power, no more kicking cases up for judicial review. This provision seems likely to rear its head again, unless there is a major increase in the relevant judicial system

An additional facet is that Expedited Removal (sorry for the multiple caps, but they are for real, not for emphasis) gets accelerated, though it is limited to those apprehended within 15 days of their encounter and within 100 miles of the border. (The latter is reminiscence of history, when people in a bunch of colonial offices far from the affected populace decided where to draw boundaries for the latter.) Since the whole idea is to make immigration more difficult, Expedited Removal seems like a future keeper.

To its credit, AIC’s characterization of the unarticulated message of the border bill was on point for the majority of people: there are simply too many people crossing the border.

Poor Biden: as he attempted to cope with the flood of migrants bussed to major cities across the country, he was under fire from even Democratic governors, and when he toughens any rules whatsoever, he is attacked by the progressive left as following a Trump playbook (“I will shut down the border”), and, for them, there can be no worse characterization of course.

 As mentioned, Ukraine and Israel were interested parties regarding the funding outcome of this political nightmare. Something about people dying, that sort of thing. Now they must hope that separate funding bills, i.e., no inclusion of border stuff, will ease the pain of the border bill collapse.

Right now, the border is de facto completely open. Other than eye witness accounts, perhaps the biggest supporting evidence is that a TikToker can develop a travel agent type business advising people how to get through the Darien Gap and eventually walk into the USA. There is an entire ecosystem of businesses providing services and products to those entering this path to a different world.

Relatedly, buying stock in an immigrant smuggling business when President Biden took office would have been highly lucrative, even after giving a required cut to the gangs which have made themselves partners of people seeking a new life in the North.

FYI:

The details pertinent to the above are not incorporated in my thoughts below, which had been previously written and I had to do something with them. An “Updated Compilation on Immigration” was posted last August and over the years I have written much about immigration. Maybe I will again, someday, perhaps revisiting the 2013 legislation which passed the Senate with 68 votes, 14 of which came from Republicans. The latter party, controlling the House of Representatives, then killed this bill. Talk about the gang which can’t shoot straight.

Overview:

The most important initial step is a clearly articulated statement by a bipartisan coalition of economists that the USA must be pro-immigrant if it is to pursue continued economic growth. For most people most of the time, this phrasing resonates with more impact than treating immigration as an issue of humaneness. If immigrants are perceived as stealing jobs or undercutting wage levels (neither of which is supported by historical data), then anti-immigrant sentiment will smother any consideration of the convoluted asylum aspect.

It would be nice to neatly categorize immigrants as being legal or illegal, but what is the applicable label for the millions who are in limbo waiting years in many cases for their cases, especially asylum, to be decided. They go about their lives partly like you and I: working (in whatever arrangement is doable), paying their bills (do you think they want undue attention), taking care of their family (however defined and wherever located), and partly with a perpetual cloud over their heads – are they destined to become Americans or will they be requested to board a plane to return to what is no longer their true home.

Data Points: only a few to paint a picture of the magnitudes involved

*From the “Wall Street Journal” of 11/31/24, citing statistics from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, border encounters in the year ended September, 2023 were 2.5 million, compared with 458,000 in fiscal 2020. The early average in fiscal 2024 is 8,600 per day.

*The following are a few previously published numbers (“New York Times” of 11/28/23) which bring together the different components of immigration: Border patrol arrests from 2/2021 to 9/2023: six million. People waiting on their asylum requests: two million (writer’s note: now it is reportedly three million, compared with 300,000 in 2012). New applications last year: 800,000. Number of immigration judges: 659 (or is it 800: different source). Number of asylum officers: 800. Typical wait time to get an answer regarding asylum: a decade. Five-year cost to eliminate the asylum backlog: $2 billion.  Note that if an asylum decision is not made in five months, the applicant can get a temporary work permit.

*In 2006, funding for U.S. Customs was $8 billion; now it is over $21 billion, all without an effective immigration reform program having been implemented, only a series of ad hoc reactions and rules. It is as if you have some lumber here and there, a toilet seat or two, some lamps, a sink, packages of shingles – all legitimate components, but alas, the house proved incapable of being built.

Some Discussion Comments

(Yes, a book could be written, with enough data to choke a statistician.)

*The Achilles heel of all immigration reform efforts is three-fold: (1) whether in truth the USA only wants certain immigrants when it wants them to do certain jobs; otherwise, it has no use for immigrants,

(2) closely related is the necessity for – symbolically – affluent white homeowners to regard their minority landscaper as a person with the same level of humanity, a person with a family (wherever they may be), with kids with aspirations, with values, with fears – both articulated and buried inside, you know like the homeowner, and (3) since a quality education is tied to economic mobility, the aging wealth holding segment of the American population must commit to educational support. Without it, the American Dream is a mirage.

*It must be acknowledged that no large group of any kind can be 100% devoid of a criminal element, i.e, the situation with immigrants is no different from that which exists throughout the existing population.

*Humane considerations pertinent to immigrants making difficult family decisions cannot hobble the need to have rules that inevitably will evoke cries of unfairness.

*Repeated immigration lawbreakers (a civil violation) must be apprehended and returned to their home country. Without that degree of discipline, any reform program will be close to useless.

*Immigrants cannot be considered as chattel for employers. Enforcement of E-Verify must be rigorous and fines for violations, substantial. Whether this results in a wave of deportations, which is not desired, depends on the timeframe and the applicability of other reform measures.

*There needs to be more emphasis on skills and less on family units; the ideal of course is that the two come as a single package.

*Ten-year green cards should be immediately given to those with DACA designations.

*Those hailing from other countries who major in STEM disciplines and earn Bachelor’s or Master’s degrees at American universities should be given five-year green cards.

*The USA must acknowledge that it cannot be deeply involved in promoting and underwriting structural changes within countries sending large numbers of immigrants to the USA. It cannot resolve economic and political challenges, wealth disparities, and corruption situations. The fact that historical transgressions by the USA contributed mightily to many of these issues simply does not mean that the USA can solve them. Consistent with this observation is that constantly/periodically figuring out quotas for individual countries based on their mix of both natural and man-made problems which cause people to leave is an impossible objective. Maybe there should be a ten-year cap, with a first come, first served sign-up at processing centers located in selected countries. Inevitably there will be the criticism that the numbers are arbitrary; yes, aren’t they all?

*Since immigration is a federal responsibility and the benefits thereof accrue to the country in total, the incremental costs associated with reform cannot be an unfunded mandate of individual states. It is the federal government’s job to secure the border by whatever means necessary. This sounds harsh, but how else can other reform efforts be successful, especially the processing of border crossers who have done it the right way.

*Ten-year sunset clauses should be used liberally in order to properly assess the pros and cons of the multiple components of immigration reform. The Law of Unintended Consequence is relevant.

*There must be a significant increase in the number of judges assigned to asylum cases; processing times must be sharply reduced to cut stress for all concerned.

Speaking of judges, it was a pleasure for your writer to speak at the recent swearing in ceremony of a woman whom I have known for thirty years. How did she get to the USA: she took “the scenic route.”

 

 

 

There is much discussion these days about why people are turned off by college. Perhaps it is cost, debt, and uncertain job prospects. While agreeing with the essential criticism of the business known as higher education, hopefully in this period of deeper analysis of both conventional routes and alternative pathways to a career, the baby – the benefits of a well-earned degree — will not be thrown out with the bath water, the shenanigans with which colleges are engaged.

College bills, for example, are analogous to those received by cable subscribers, a potpourri of different items designed to blur the vision by the time the big number at the bottom appears.

Like the cable company, or the streamers, or the hotel or the airplane, once a business believes they have you as a customer, add-ons of individually small numbers are inevitable. Colleges follow this playbook. Moreover, like their explicitly for-profit counterparts, they use absurdly precise numbers to suggest there is an actual financial justification for a line item. There is not. Pull back the curtain and you will see somebody plugging in a number for the purpose of supporting an overall financial goal, itself typically extracted from the air or a little read strategic plan.

Below is a minor, but indicative, real world example for one semester at a relatively inexpensive public institution.

Excluded is absurdly expensive health insurance, as it can be waived if the student is on their parent’s policy. Note that the student must take action to get this budget item removed as the college uses the negative option approach – you pay unless you act.  Also excluded is room and board. Living somewhere and eating periodically are going to cost money no matter what the related academic situation.

Academic Excellence Fee:        $262.50               Apparently academic excellence is not something which comes with tuition; you have the bill for your meal but must pay extra for the utensils.

Comprehensive Fee:                    $1,484.25           You tell me. Is it for the green grass in the quad, the stone architecture, the banned beer hall. The checkwriter has no idea.

Student Activity Fee:                    $109.00               At least this is clear. If you the student find that classes, homework, and all the drudgery of studying are not conducive to your mental health, you can hit the gym and work up a sweat alongside the tenured professor who is paying zero for the pleasure, and who last week was a no-show for your advisory meeting.

Tuition:                                                $3,535.00           Presumably this covers something akin to educating the student about an array of subjects, many of which will cease to be in their mind once they  graduate and pick up their diploma. Yes, the student pays extra to have a gown and walk.

The expense breakdown at the average college will include more line items and larger numbers.

The above commentary nonetheless remains on point.