Less than four months have passed since the shooting at Oikos University in Oakland California that left seven dead.  Only six months ago Travyon Martin, an unarmed 17 year old African American, was shot by neighborhood watch coordinator George Zimmerman, who was using a legally owned semiautomatic pistol.  It’s time to admit that gun ownership and use is out of control in this country, and that restrictions must be put in place to safeguard the larger society.

The attack carried out by James Holmes that left twelve dead is a complicated springboard from which to discuss gun laws in the United States, because it pushes our discussions towards the extremes. The case is not a good example of what gun violence really looks like in this country. Assault rifles are involved in only five percent of gun-related homicides, and the case has shocked us all, because it is an anomaly.  Because of this, it’s easy to argue that Holmes is a lunatic and that this is not an issue related to guns but rather to his mental health.

However, most gun-related homicides are not carried out in the sort of maniacal and organized manner in which the theater shooting was orchestrated.  Perhaps tougher gun laws could not have prevented Holmes from carrying out his act, but they could have minimized its severity and would prevent any number of incidents that leave behind a body count.

To argue that “it’s not guns that kill people, it’s crazy people that kill people” is to ignore the reality that the ubiquity of and easy access to firearms has a quantifiable effect on violence. The United States has the loosest gun control laws in the developed world and the highest gun ownership rate in the world.  With over 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008, we have a devastating death toll to show for it. Based on a study published by UCLA’s School of Public Health in 2010, the United States has a homicide by gun rate 19.5 times higher than that of other high-income countries.

For those who will say nothing more than “the Second Amendment says that I have a right to own guns,” it’s worth nothing the frame of reference for the writers of the Bill of Rights.  The flintlock musket fired three shots per minute and had an effective range of about 75 to 100 meters.  Bayonets and other weapons that required hand to hand combat were military grade weapons.  One of the weapons used in the Batman shooting was an AR-15 semi automatic assault rifle, which shoots around 600 rounds per minute.  Holmes legally purchased three thousand dollars worth of firepower from online stores.   There is no official system that could be used to have tracked Holmes’ or any customers’ purchases.

No one is absolving Holmes for his act by saying that gun laws should be stricter.  The argument is not that the easy access to guns was the reason that Holmes massacred people; the argument is that Holmes was able to carry out such a devastating act because he was able to easily access military grade weapons.

The gun debate rests on a central question: do you feel safer knowing that you can own and carry a gun or knowing that the people around you can’t?  Do you want to be able to protect yourself in case of emergency, or do you want to minimize the possibility of said emergency in the first place?  If we don’t address the ideological question at the base of this debate, it will be impossible for us to proactively move forward.

The post It’s Time to Talk About Guns appeared first on NextGen Journal.

In other words, you’re free to buy liters of Coke at your supermarket, but, if you want more than 16 ounces of soda at lunch, you’ll have to buy two bottles.

New York has been a leader in many of its health policies, but this will have less impact than other health-related acts that the mayor has enacted, i.e. the ban on artificial trans fat. This is not going to solve obesity because it doesn’t address the deeper roots of the issue. In part, obesity is a product of a food system that distances consumers from the food they eat, which minimizes our knowledge about what enters our bodies and what effect it inevitably has on our health. Additionally, individuals’ health has a larger effect on our healthcare systems and the economy itself.  This action shows a political disposition towards surface-level solutions to difficult problems.

This is not to say that soda and sugary drinks shouldn’t be a target in the fight against obesity. They should. As soda, with its sugar or artificial sweeteners, mysterious colorings, flavorings and chemical compounds, has replaced drinks with positive health benefits (water, milk, fruit juices, even coffee), consumers have suffered and obesity has increased. However, banning the sale of a certain size of beverage in limited locations will not wean people off of their daily soda-fix and help fight obesity.

The best way to turn our soda consumption around would be a tax. The tax in itself would be dissuasive in the same way tobacco taxes are.  The money from the tax could then be used towards anti-obesity education and getting healthy foods to the more than one million students in the New York City public school system.

Surely passing a tax like this would be much more difficult than passing the Mayor’s proposed ban. In the past, Bloomberg supported a state tax on sodas, but the bill didn’t survive the state legislature in Albany. Now Bloomberg, who has said he feels he has the legal authority to restrict the sale of soda, has chosen the easy and inefficient response to this problem. He will get to put the ban on his resume and move on, likely at the cost of a measure that might actually be productive.

The ban is an artificial solution and it is unlikely to change soda consumption habits or solve the long term goal of fighting obesity. Rather, it will just annoy many people and possibly make them more resistant to future laws aimed at improving New Yorkers’, and the general population’s, health.

The post Mayor Bloomberg And Big Beverages appeared first on NextGen Journal.