✧ ✧ MidWestMyers ✧ ✧

To have every person in America armed with any caliber weapon.

 That seems to be the mission statement of today’s NRA, and the more they stick to that position, the more desperate and out of touch they appear.

 I haven’t heard any advocate for gun control say anything about taking away all of the guns, and yet the NRA continues to take a stance as if that is exactly what is being proposed.

 People can keep their rifles and shotguns for hunting and target, and their pistols for home and personal protection. But if you need to own and shoot a weapon of war, join the military.

 The reality of the situation is that what most open-minded people are asking for is a reduction or elimination of the availability of battlefield weapons; those guns and accessories that are designed not for sport, but for the sole objective of killing and maiming as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.  Sportsman don’t need or want these weapons.

 Some people strongly object to this line of thinking.

“I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”

So strongly in fact, that these seem to be the last people who should be allowed to own a gun. (UPDATE: TIme (and legalities) seems to have tempered this man’s anger, as he’s edited his video to delete the above statement, but he makes reference to it here.)

 One of the many NRA arguments against more gun control is that there are already hundreds of gun control laws, and we just have to enforce them.  Well, the problem here is two-fold.  Number one, most laws designed to keep checks on guns being sold to the wrong individuals have been neutered by the lobbying of the NRA, essentially making them ineffectual, and number two, we shouldn’t have hundreds of laws, with each state regulating in their own way.  We should have a national set of laws that are universal for all states and all Americans.

 Jay Sterling Silver of the Christian Science Monitor sums up the arguments of those against gun control well:

..opposition to gun regulation on the basis that it won’t keep guns out of the hands of murderers or that mental health resources could be brought to bear in these cases reflects what is known in formal logic as the “red herring fallacy.” This is when one argument is used to deflect attention from what’s really at issue.

[…]

 The fact that a law won’t completely eradicate a particular harm is not an argument against its adoption.

This holds true for gun regulation. The point is that, as with all law designed to protect life and limb, tighter gun control laws will reduce the carnage. Even a modest measure banning, for example, the high-capacity ammunition magazines used in these atrocities would have saved many innocent lives.

The arguments that guns would still fall into the wrong hands, that death will be wrought by other means, and that those who pull the trigger often have mental health problems are a sleight of hand when offered to defeat tighter gun controls.

Their answer to all gun violence seems to be more guns, arguing for armed guards and teachers in schools, and everywhere else in society in order to keep us safe.  Just this week there was another school shooting, but without the high powered assault rifle and body count that often goes along with it.  Fortunately, teacher Ryan Heber was able to talk the shooter, a student, into surrendering.

This sort of contradicts Wayne La Pierre’s simplistic, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

I wonder if there had been armed staff at the Taft Union high school if the suspect would have survived. Certainly there may have been more than the one casualty. These school shooters are often students or adolescents, and someone’s child.  More lives taken is not the answer.

New gun laws may not be perfect at first, but surely this is an issue that we should err on the side of caution with, is it not?

This past May, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a “ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters” and other public venues.  The ban he is proposing was almost universally criticized, as The New Yorker pointed out, “by both John Stewart and John Boehner.”

 Now, overall I’m a fan of Mayor Bloomberg.  I admire him because his loyalties are not to the left or right, but to common sense.  I can’t say that I am as vehemently opposed to this drink ban as many others, though I do understand where their criticism is coming from, even if I do believe it’s a little overblown.

 But if nothing else, Bloomberg has brought attention to the ridiculous portion sizes of the drinks being served in restaurants, cafes, movie theaters, and sporting & event arenas.  The standard size of soft drink portions that these public venues serve has grown considerably over the past decades.  Even my kids are surprised by the size when they order a medium drink at a fast food restaurant.

 Honestly, it is truly ridiculous how large the serving sizes have become, with one of the most extreme being the 7-Eleven Team Gulp at 128 oz.  That’s just crazy.  Would you buy a 2 liter bottle of soda and stick a straw in it?  How about two, because that’s just about what you would be doing with this team gulp.

 Indeed, the gas station/convenient stores seem to be the worst offenders, but McDonald’s, Wendy’s & Burger King all offer a 42 oz drink size. That’s over 5 cups of liquid – go ahead, take a look at that measuring cup you have in the cabinet.  KFC is apparently the worst offender with a 64 oz drink, a full half gallon.

 Even coffee shops are not immune to this, with Starbucks increasing their sizes from the original 12 oz large – now called the Tall, and their default “small” size –  to a 31 oz Trenta.  That’s the equivalent to going into a diner and ordering four cups of coffee.

 Bloomberg does have a point about portion sizes, and he see’s where his city’s money is going – health care for the obese.  And he does have an epidemic on his hands as unhealthy, overweight individuals tax health services and use more sick time.

 Of course the companies serving up these extra large drinks, with names such as HuMUGous, The Beast, and Mega, claim that their customers are perfectly capable of making intelligent decisions when it comes to these choices. You would think so.  But how often have you heard, after making your choice, a friendly cashier ask if you’d like to get the next larger portion for only 50 cents more? Apparently, even if we do make a choice that’s best for us, it’s not good enough for these retailers.

 So while Bloomberg’s concern about the drink sizes in his city, and the nation, are valid I think that perhaps he is going about it the problem the wrong way.  The large sizes should not be banned.  If you want to be a glutton, go for it.  What Bloomberg should instate is a mandatory sizing for reasonable drinks, whereby all venues serve a Small at 8 oz, Medium at 12 oz, and Large at 16 oz.  After that the vendor can create any size they want and call it what they want.  I even have a few suggestions:

• 20 oz – Xtra Large

• 24 oz – Super Size

• 32 oz – Double Portion

• 64 oz – Slosh-buckler

• 128 oz – Elephantine

• 256 oz – Water-Boarder