US High in Gun Ownership, Low in Murder Rate
From: Newsmax
Several reports on gun ownership around the world
clearly refute the assertion that the abundance of guns in the United
States leads to a high rate of firearm homicides.
Americans are the biggest gun owners by far, with
an estimated 270 million civilian firearms, in addition to those used
by law enforcement and the military. That’s according to the Small Arms
Survey of 178 nations conducted by the Switzerland-based Graduate
Institute of International and Development Studies.
In sheer numbers of civilian firearms, the No. 2
nation, surprisingly, is India with 46 million, followed by China (40
million), Germany (25 million), Pakistan (18 million), and Mexico (15
million).
The United States also leads in gun ownership
rate, with about 88 firearms per 100 people, according to the most
recent Small Arms Survey compiled in 2007.
That is far ahead of No. 2 Yemen, which has 55
firearms per 100 people. Switzerland is third with 46 per 100 people,
followed by Finland (45), Serbia (38), Cyprus (36), Saudi Arabia (35),
and Iraq (34).
But when it comes to the firearm homicide rate, the United States doesn’t even make the top 25.
According to figures collected by the United
Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime through its annual crime survey,
9,146 Americans were victims of a firearm homicide in the most recent
year. That translates to a rate of 2.97 firearm homicides per 100,000
population, only the 27th highest rate in the world.
The highest rate by far can be found in Honduras,
68 homicides per 100,000, followed by El Salvador (40), Jamaica (39),
Venezuela (38.9), Guatemala (34), and Colombia (27).
For America’s neighbors, the rate in Mexico is 9.9 per 100,000, and in Canada, 0.5 per 100,000.
It is interesting to note that not only does the
United States have a relatively low homicide rate compared to its gun
ownership rate, but Switzerland, which ranks third in the civilian gun
ownership rate, has only the 46th highest homicide rate, and Finland,
with the fourth highest ownership rate, is 63rd on the list.
“The most obnoxious liberal talking points on
guns involve the idea that guns, in and of themselves, cause gun
violence,” writes CNS News commentator Stephen Gutowski. “In other
words, more guns must mean more gun violence.”
But in light of the ownership and homicide
figures, he observes: “More guns do not, in fact, mean more gun
violence. Guns can be, and commonly are, used in a responsible manner,
especially here in the United States.”
Coronavirus / COVID-19
Sunday, February 10, 2013
“It will begin. It will last ten years. It will be good for the economy.
It will be very helpful,” anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist said
recently. The “it” he refers to is what’s become known as “the
sequester” — automatic spending cuts in the Budget Control Act of 2011
that were originally proposed and then signed into law by President
Barack Obama, after being passed by both Houses of Congress.
Since everyone from Mr. Obama to the backest-bench blowhard congressman argues that we need to curtail out-of-control deficit spending, the idea was to propose some actual cuts . . . off in the future, mind you. Moreover, these particular spending cuts were designed to be so unpalatable to both Republican and Democratic politicians that both sides would be forced to come together, at some point, to agree on more thoughtful reductions in spending. The time to do this? Back then, that dreaded far flung future was today.
Add time management to the long list of Washington’s failures.
That both parties kicked the can down the road back in 2011, that they concocted and armed what they intended to be a mini-doomsday machine, and that these two colorful armies of partisan Dr. Strangeloves could not come together to disarm their creation is stunningly no surprise at all.
Now, as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta steps down, he complains again that, “If sequester takes place, and we suddenly have another half a trillion dollars [over ten years] that I got to take out of the defense budget, in an across-the-board fashion, frankly, the defense strategy we put in place I’d have to throw out the window.”
Sorry to hear that, Mr. Secretary. Perhaps that’s why, as recently as last September, a Pentagon spokesperson admitted “we have not begun any planning efforts” to address the looming 7.3 percent reduction in military spending for 2013. (Were none of the Pentagon big-shots ever Boy Scouts?)
The exclamation point in Panetta’s testimony before Congress last week was his conclusion that, “Instead of being a first-rate power in the world, we’d turn into a second-rate power. That would be the result of sequester.”
Hmmm. Doesn’t sound very safe. We’re not talking about losing farm subsidies for wealthy corporate farm companies or free cellphones for those on the receiving end of other welfare programs or the money to reward green-energy cronies. The military keeps us safe . . . when it’s not blowing up bad guys (along with women and children) in countries most of us can’t find on the map.
What Panetta and others decrying these supposedly “massive” cuts don’t bother to mention is anything about the actual numbers. The U.S. Government spent $711 billion on the military in 2011 — more than the next twelve nations combined.
The next closest are China and Russia. In 2011, China spent $143 billion on its military and Russia $72 billion. Yet, a number of recent media reports hype the fact that in coming years military spending in China and Russia may eclipse the U.S., when figured as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. But China’s GDP is less than half of ours and Russia’s GDP compares at only 12 percent.
If, after sequestration, we become a second-rate power, it’s comforting to realize there would certainly be no first-rate powers ahead of us.
“So if you imagine for every dollar spent on militaries in the world, 40 cents of it is spent by the U.S. and roughly . . . another 45 cents of it is spent by our allies,” explains Peter W. Singer, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution. “If sequestration happens, we go from spending about 40 cents out of every dollar to about 38 cents out of every dollar. So you decline, but not by this massive amount.”
Moreover, when it comes to national defense, cutting our dangerous deficit spending is the most important action we can take. As Admiral Mike Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argues, “Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.”
Of course, there is still time before March 1 to avoid these cuts. Obama calls for a balanced approach by raising taxes and making other cuts — unlike the fix fashioned over New Year’s in which no cuts were made and only tax increases imposed.
This time, however, smart Republicans like Mr. Norquist and columnist Charles Krauthammer realize it is Mr. Obama who is squirming and they are warning their brethren not to cave to the president. “This is the one time Republicans can get cuts under an administration that has no intent of cutting anything,” Krauthammer wrote recently. “Get them while you can.”
Indeed, the GOP-controlled House has already passed legislation replacing the sequestration cuts with different but equivalent spending reductions. President Obama can choose which cuts he prefers.
Besides, he can console himself: even with these cuts, Obama can still go down in history as the nation’s all-time biggest deficit spender.
Since everyone from Mr. Obama to the backest-bench blowhard congressman argues that we need to curtail out-of-control deficit spending, the idea was to propose some actual cuts . . . off in the future, mind you. Moreover, these particular spending cuts were designed to be so unpalatable to both Republican and Democratic politicians that both sides would be forced to come together, at some point, to agree on more thoughtful reductions in spending. The time to do this? Back then, that dreaded far flung future was today.
Add time management to the long list of Washington’s failures.
That both parties kicked the can down the road back in 2011, that they concocted and armed what they intended to be a mini-doomsday machine, and that these two colorful armies of partisan Dr. Strangeloves could not come together to disarm their creation is stunningly no surprise at all.
Now, as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta steps down, he complains again that, “If sequester takes place, and we suddenly have another half a trillion dollars [over ten years] that I got to take out of the defense budget, in an across-the-board fashion, frankly, the defense strategy we put in place I’d have to throw out the window.”
Sorry to hear that, Mr. Secretary. Perhaps that’s why, as recently as last September, a Pentagon spokesperson admitted “we have not begun any planning efforts” to address the looming 7.3 percent reduction in military spending for 2013. (Were none of the Pentagon big-shots ever Boy Scouts?)
The exclamation point in Panetta’s testimony before Congress last week was his conclusion that, “Instead of being a first-rate power in the world, we’d turn into a second-rate power. That would be the result of sequester.”
Hmmm. Doesn’t sound very safe. We’re not talking about losing farm subsidies for wealthy corporate farm companies or free cellphones for those on the receiving end of other welfare programs or the money to reward green-energy cronies. The military keeps us safe . . . when it’s not blowing up bad guys (along with women and children) in countries most of us can’t find on the map.
What Panetta and others decrying these supposedly “massive” cuts don’t bother to mention is anything about the actual numbers. The U.S. Government spent $711 billion on the military in 2011 — more than the next twelve nations combined.
The next closest are China and Russia. In 2011, China spent $143 billion on its military and Russia $72 billion. Yet, a number of recent media reports hype the fact that in coming years military spending in China and Russia may eclipse the U.S., when figured as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. But China’s GDP is less than half of ours and Russia’s GDP compares at only 12 percent.
If, after sequestration, we become a second-rate power, it’s comforting to realize there would certainly be no first-rate powers ahead of us.
“So if you imagine for every dollar spent on militaries in the world, 40 cents of it is spent by the U.S. and roughly . . . another 45 cents of it is spent by our allies,” explains Peter W. Singer, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution. “If sequestration happens, we go from spending about 40 cents out of every dollar to about 38 cents out of every dollar. So you decline, but not by this massive amount.”
Moreover, when it comes to national defense, cutting our dangerous deficit spending is the most important action we can take. As Admiral Mike Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argues, “Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.”
Of course, there is still time before March 1 to avoid these cuts. Obama calls for a balanced approach by raising taxes and making other cuts — unlike the fix fashioned over New Year’s in which no cuts were made and only tax increases imposed.
This time, however, smart Republicans like Mr. Norquist and columnist Charles Krauthammer realize it is Mr. Obama who is squirming and they are warning their brethren not to cave to the president. “This is the one time Republicans can get cuts under an administration that has no intent of cutting anything,” Krauthammer wrote recently. “Get them while you can.”
Indeed, the GOP-controlled House has already passed legislation replacing the sequestration cuts with different but equivalent spending reductions. President Obama can choose which cuts he prefers.
Besides, he can console himself: even with these cuts, Obama can still go down in history as the nation’s all-time biggest deficit spender.
The 100th Anniversary of U.S. Income Taxes
This week marks the 100th anniversary
of the passage of the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which
made it legal for the U.S. federal government to impose taxes upon the
income earned by Americans. Since income tax season in the United States
has officially begun, we thought we'd mark the occasion by revisiting
our original Form 1040 tool, where you can find out how much of the money you earned last year would have been taken from you by Uncle Sam back in 1913!
Back then, of course, you would only have had until the first of March to pay up - but then, income taxes were a lot less complicated back then, which is one reason why the federal government now gives you until the 15th of April each year to pay up, or else....
3. The normal tax of 1 per cent shall be assessed on the total net income less the specific excemption of $3,000 or $4,000 as the case may be. (For the year 1913, the specific exemption allowable is $2,500, or $3,333.33, as the case may be.) If, however, the normal tax has been deducted and withheld on any part of the income at the source, or if any part of the income is received as dividends upon the stock or from the net earnings of any corporation, etc., which is taxable upon its net income, such income shall be deducted from the individual's total net income for the purpose of calculating the amount of income on which the individual is liable for the normal tax of 1 per cent by virtue of this return.
19. An unmarried individual or a married individual not living with wife or husband shall be allowed an exemption of $3,000. When husband and wife live together they shall be allowed jointly a total exemption of only $4,000 on their aggregate income. They may make a joint return, both subscribing thereto, or if they have separate incomes, they may make separate returns; but in no case shall they jointly claim more than $4,000 exemption on their aggregate income.
Speaking of complexity, if we go by the CCH Standard Federal Tax Reporter, it takes 73,954 regular 8-1/2" x 11" pages in 2013 to explain the U.S. federal tax code.
Meanwhile, the mortgage interest deduction has always been with us! And so has the itemized deduction for all state and local taxes paid by taxpayers, but not the deduction for charitable contributions, which was added to the tax code in 1917 - just as income tax rates were being jacked up to pay for World War I.
Finally, the people least likely to be paying their fair share of income taxes in the United States live in households with incomes below $67,530. Coincidentally, that's where over half of the income available to be taxed is to be found in the United States. Just in case you ever wondered why President Obama was so happy to let his emergency 2% payroll tax cut expire on New Years Day of 2013....
Back then, of course, you would only have had until the first of March to pay up - but then, income taxes were a lot less complicated back then, which is one reason why the federal government now gives you until the 15th of April each year to pay up, or else....
| IRS Form 1040, Circa 1913 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Return of Net Income Received or Accrued During the Year Ended December 31, 191_ | ||
| 1. Gross Income (see page 2, line 12) | ||
| 2. General Deductions (see page 3, line 7) | ||
| 3. Net Income | ||
| Deductions and exemptions allowed in computing income subject to the normal tax of 1 per cent. | ||
| 4. Dividends and net earnings received or accrued, of corporations, etc., subject to like tax. (See page 2, line 11) | ||
| 5. Amount of income on which the normal tax has been deducted and withheld at the source. (See page 2, line 9, column A) | ||
| 6. Specific exemption of $3000 or $4000, as the case may be. (See Instructions 3 and 19) | ||
| Total deductions and exemptions (Items 4, 5, and 6) | ||
| 7. Taxable Income on which the normal tax of 1 per cent is to be calculated. (See Instruction 3) | ||
| 8. When the net income shown above on line 3 exceeds $20,000, the additional tax thereon must be calculated as per schedule below: | ||
| INCOME | TAX | |
| 1 per cent on amount over $20,000 and not exceeding $50,000 | ||
| 2 per cent on amount over $50,000 and not exceeding $75,000 | ||
| 3 per cent on amount over $75,000 and not exceeding $100,000 | ||
| 4 per cent on amount over $100,000 and not exceeding $250,000 | ||
| 5 per cent on amount over $250,000 and not exceeding $500,000 | ||
| 6 per cent on amount over $500,000 | ||
| Total additional or super tax | ||
| Total normal tax (1 per cent of amount entered on line 7) | ||
| Total tax liability | ||
Excerpts from the Instructions
3. The normal tax of 1 per cent shall be assessed on the total net income less the specific excemption of $3,000 or $4,000 as the case may be. (For the year 1913, the specific exemption allowable is $2,500, or $3,333.33, as the case may be.) If, however, the normal tax has been deducted and withheld on any part of the income at the source, or if any part of the income is received as dividends upon the stock or from the net earnings of any corporation, etc., which is taxable upon its net income, such income shall be deducted from the individual's total net income for the purpose of calculating the amount of income on which the individual is liable for the normal tax of 1 per cent by virtue of this return.
19. An unmarried individual or a married individual not living with wife or husband shall be allowed an exemption of $3,000. When husband and wife live together they shall be allowed jointly a total exemption of only $4,000 on their aggregate income. They may make a joint return, both subscribing thereto, or if they have separate incomes, they may make separate returns; but in no case shall they jointly claim more than $4,000 exemption on their aggregate income.
Afterthoughts
Speaking of complexity, if we go by the CCH Standard Federal Tax Reporter, it takes 73,954 regular 8-1/2" x 11" pages in 2013 to explain the U.S. federal tax code.
Meanwhile, the mortgage interest deduction has always been with us! And so has the itemized deduction for all state and local taxes paid by taxpayers, but not the deduction for charitable contributions, which was added to the tax code in 1917 - just as income tax rates were being jacked up to pay for World War I.
Finally, the people least likely to be paying their fair share of income taxes in the United States live in households with incomes below $67,530. Coincidentally, that's where over half of the income available to be taxed is to be found in the United States. Just in case you ever wondered why President Obama was so happy to let his emergency 2% payroll tax cut expire on New Years Day of 2013....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)