I just read where traffic accidents resulting in pedestrian injuries and/or death have risen in Virginia over the past year. A governor’s council believes this is partially due to Michelle Obama’s efforts to get America moving by walking places rather than driving/riding. They feel that the increase in foot traffic has led to increased accidents.
So, do I “blame” Michelle and Big Government? Of course not! There are always unintended consequences from any action. Some of these are positive and some are negative. Unless the negative outcomes outweigh the positive outcomes, there is no reason to back away from your choice.
While I haven’t seen any figures to be able to definitively say, but I’d be willing to bet that the number of people that have had their lives improved through increased exercise far out numbers those who have been injured. You don’t stop a good due to a miniscule amount of negatives. If this were the case there would be no aspirin because some people are aspirin sensitive. There would be no flu vaccines because some people have reactions. There would be no airplanes because sometimes they crash. Etc. Etc. Etc.
What gets me is how the liberals are very attuned to this concept and endorse it when it’s involving one of their pet projects. One where the balance may not be quite so obviously for the positive over the negative, say in the “Cap and Trade (Tax?)” carbon emissions area. Yes, this would reduce carbon in the environment and it might reduce the chance of the yet unsubstantiated global warming, but at what cost? The measures called for in this bill would increase the cost of energy, which would then increase the cost of virtually everything from heating and cooling your home to the food you eat. This would undoubtedly impact people more the lower they are on the income spectrum. The very people the liberals count on for their votes. And yet they push these ideas forward.
On the opposite side of the spectrum you hear the liberals squawk loudly for gun control or bans on guns anytime a gun is used by a criminal or a crazy. Yes, it is deplorable every time a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime. But they are INTENTIONALLY committing a crime. They have consciously made the decision to break the law and rob someone or kill someone. Do you really think that having a law against them having a gun will be a deterrent?
And what about the crazy person? There are already laws in place to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable, but accidents happen and sometimes they are able to acquire a weapon. But how many times does this really happen? I’ll be generous and say that this happens once a month in every state in the Union. That would be 600 people per year (way more than is the actual occurrence). Using a rough approximation of our population of 350 million people in this country, that means that .000171% of the population gets a weapon through an error in the system and commits a heinous crime. Is that a reason to outlaw gun ownership for all the sane, law abiding citizens who only wish to protect themselves? The liberal gun nuts will say yes! They will say one death is too many. And in theory I agree. Any death is to be lamented. However, to remove handguns from the general population makes everyone a better target for the criminal set. It has been proven time and again, where there is legal handgun ownership, violent crimes decrease.
While seldom reported (unlike the cases of the mad gunman) private gun ownership saves lives and forestalls crime every day. If only the liberal gun nuts were to use the same math on all issues that they so readily try to apply to their questionable issues, we would be far better off.
No comments:
Post a Comment