Monday, March 25, 2013

The Most Baneful State in the Union

After much deliberation the Mikeb302000 judges have decided to award the State of Florida with the crown.

Most Baneful State of the Union

It was a terribly difficult decision. Arizona seemed to be in the lead. But three factors contributed to the final outcome.

1. The governor
Before inexplicably becoming the governor of the state of Florida, Republican Rick Scott's most notable accomplishment was pulling off a major health care scam, defrauding taxpayers, and narrowly avoiding a criminal indictment.
2. The gun laws
Mayors Against Illegal Guns released a report this week that maps the influence of states with lax gun control laws on violence in states that have stronger gun control laws. Pro-gun advocates have frequently made the argument that gun control laws don’t work because states with tough gun control laws don’t have less violent crime than states with weaker laws. The problem with that argument was that state lines don’t work like some magical barrier and it is easy for someone living in a state with tough laws to drive to a neighboring state that has weaker laws, buy guns and come back home to commit the crime.
3. The prescription drugs
The nation's top 25 oxycodone-dispensing doctors were all in Florida in the first half of 2008; 18 of them were in Broward County, according to a Broward County state attorney grand-jury report. In South Florida overall, there were 176 pill mills, up from 66 just 14 months before. This has contributed to tourism — pill-shopping trips to the Sunshine State from Tennessee and Kentucky, where authorities have cracked down hard on similar clinics, seem to be as common as Disney vacations nowadays. In the parking lot of the Broward Pain Clinic, there are just as many license plates from Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky as there are from Florida.

4. Frequent Police Shootings

The shiny object in question was likely a fist-sized batch of crack cocaine wrapped in aluminum foil, according to a final report released Thursday. And Marin was justified in using lethal force, Miami-Dade prosecutors concluded in the first detailed account of the first of seven controversial fatal shootings in seven months in Miami.

It was decided that although Arizona makes a good showing in the first two categories, only Florida has this deadly and volitile combination. And not unlike the radioactive lava leaking out of a Fukushima reactor, this deadly trifecta of corruption and death, poisons all it touches, reaching far beyond the borders of the Sunshine State.

What's your opinion? Do you agree with the decision of the MikeB judges?

 Please leave a comment.


  1. No.

    1. If true, Illinois is an example of how other states have the same problem. New York is another one.

    2. The gun laws of Florida are excellent. All states should look to that state as an example among many other excellent states.

    3. Some of the states mentioned have major problems with meth. Drugs of all kinds are a national problem, and the prohibitionist approach isn't working--similar to gun control.

    4. Those have to be investigated, and I don't trust your judges to make rational assessments.

    1. No state has such a combination of baneful factors. Arizona is close.

  2. Remember, federal law requires a background check on retail sales of all handguns. So a New York City criminal (with a criminal record) will not be able to purchase a handgun in another state regardless of how "weak" or "strong" their firearms laws are.

    1. What is wrong with you? ANYBODY can buy a gun privately with no background check.

    2. And if they do it out of state, that's already ILLEGAL. But you want to make it doubly illegal.

      The illegal gun market is already large, and would continue to grow through stolen guns, illegally sold ones that were reported lost or stolen, illegal guns smuggled in, etc.

      Just look at your Jamaica post. If they can't stop smugglers, why do you continue to claim that WE could stop them when we have FAR more land and sea borders.

    3. And since it's already illegal for a person to buy a handgun across state lines, what would a new law that criminals will ignore accomplish?

    4. I'd like to see an answer to Greg's question. And not a canned line about how that's why we need registration. Registration isn't on the table now, so tell us how your current proposals that ARE on the table would accomplish more.

    5. I don't know what Greg means by "a new law that criminals will ignore."

    6. Your proposals of universal background checks and an "anti-trafficking" law would seem to be the two that make logical sense.

      Could you really not figure that out Mike?

    7. No I couldn't figure it out, but now that you mention it I suppose he was referring to my comment above about private sales.

      The fact that criminals ignore laws doesn't enter into it if the laws are aimed at the law-abiding. Can't you figure that out?

    8. Those law abiding aren't going out and selling guns to out of state people or prohibited persons right now, because that's ALREADY illegal.

      To be sure, some lawful owners are not law abiding and do straw purchases or sales to known prohibited persons or out of state traffickers. What will another law, making their actions even more illegal, do to help the situation?

    9. Mikeb, can't you figure out that laws aimed only at the law-abiding make no sense? Those are laws that criminalize things that are not wrong.

      But would you please consider two points that I've raised many times?

      1. We have long and porous borders. Anyone and anything can cross them. Shipping guns in would be much easier than cocaine and other drugs, since all machine parts smell alike.

      2. There are more than 300,000,000 guns in this country. Most of them are not registered, and many have changed hands since their original sale. If your proposals became law, all of those guns would become potential blackmarket goods.

      Those two facts are why gun control is impossible in practical terms. You can weasel about on how law-abiding people won't become criminals, but you don't get how much a large portion of Americans hate gun control. You don't get how tired we are of your attempts--added on top of one new government imposition of power after another. And no, I'm not talking about Obamacare, even though many others are. I'm thinking of drones and cameras and Kelo v. New London, and on and on.

      Your side loves to meddle. What you forget is that Americans have fought wars and lower level battles with meddlesome insects--some successful, some not. You don't get that there comes a point when we don't care if we'll win or lose, but we'll fight anyway.

    10. The fact that smuggling guns into the country would certainly increase if criminals were no longer able to buy guns in private sales or steal so many due to safe storage laws is no reason to continue allowing those two major sources of guns used in crime.

      My belief is importing guns would never make up for the incredibly hagh accessibility there is now domestically.

      But, the real question is why do you want to make it easier for criminals and lunatics to get guns?

    11. We recognize that your proposals would only burden good citizens, while not doing much of anything to change the availability to criminals. We're not going to go along with major changes to our laws on the basis of what you believe.

    12. +1 to what Greg said.

      As for your belief that illegal imports would not increase enough to make up for what you think would be a diminished supply, you're at least finally admitting that they would increase. However, like in the past, you're not offering any rationale behind your belief, just your bare belief.

  3. MikeB wrote, "... state lines don’t work like some magical barrier and it is easy for someone living in a state with tough laws to drive to a neighboring state that has weaker laws, buy guns and come back home to commit the crime."

    Thank you for stating in your own words that:
    (1) Criminals do NOT obey laws.
    (2) Criminals will acquire guns regardless of laws or controls.

    So why do you press for gun control laws when you KNOW that criminals will not obey laws and will always find ways to acquire guns?!?!?!?

    1. My idea of proper gun control laws would impact the lawful gun owners who keep letting their guns slip into the criminal world. The demand will always be there, but it's the supply that we can do something about. But, of course, that means you lawful gun owners will have to begin taking responsibility for your actions. I know you don't like that.

    2. "But it's the supply that we can do something about."

      Really MikeB? Our local, state, and federal governments have spent 10s of BILLIONS of dollars annually on the "war on drugs" over the last 30 or so years and the illegal narcotics are still readily available in every major U.S. city. If the U.S. cannot seriously reduce the supply of illegal narcotics, how can the U.S. seriously reduce the supply of "illegal" guns?

      The United States is a huge country with 10s of thousands of miles of borders and coasts and an almost infinite ability to make anything internally. Our government, which cannot make drugs disappear, cannot make guns disappear. Just as criminals have no trouble acquiring illegal narcotics, criminals will have no trouble acquiring illegal guns.

    3. You can't get registration. We won't allow it. Without registration, pleas for background checks won't work. Without the whole block of nonsense that you want, gun control will do nothing but burden good citizens, and you have to know that you can't get what you want.