Jill Porter: Help keep the economy going by buying more guns

[WhiteFeather]

Yet another anti-gun article from Jill Porter

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/21930199.html

Jill Porter: Help keep the economy going by buying more guns

DON'T KNOW about you, but I'm going to spend my tax-refund incentive check to buy a gun.
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that individuals - and not just members of militias - have the right to bear arms, it's the least we can do.

Really.

I was going to buy a dining-room rug, but that won't boost the economy nearly as much as having more guns in circulation.

And I'm not just talking about the billions of dollars in profits made by gun manufacturers.

The health-care industry will continue to boom, thanks to the victims of gun violence.

One Philadelphia study estimated, for instance, that one person hospitalized with a serious gunshot wound requires $20,000 in medical care, which pays for everything from ambulance trips to nurses' salaries to IV tubes to heart monitors to those funky little booties they give you to wear.

One local hospital generated $1.1 million in medical care caring for gunshot victims during one year alone - and that study was done 10 years ago. You can imagine how much more is being spent now.

Of course, not everyone survives their gunshot wounds, so the funeral industry will remain robust.

As of yesterday, for instance, 130 of the city's 158 homicide victims were killed with guns.

What with a funeral costing an average of $6,500, according to a KYW report, that would be $1.7 million spent on funerals in our town this year, if fatalities remain steady for the next six months.

Then there are the fat payments to the shrinks who care for: the families of murder victims; the survivors of shootings who need help adapting to permanent disability; the guilt-wracked individuals who use guns for "protection" who accidentally kill or injure innocent victims; and the devastated families whose children accidentally kill themselves while playing with weapons.

Would it be petty to mention all the beef and beer sold at fundraisers to help families survive financially - if not emotionally - when the breadwinner is murdered?

All of this money is spent in the aftermath of a shooting, of course.

But preventing gun violence also keeps lots of companies in business: the manufacturers of metal detectors, bullet-proof vests, and Plexiglas shields for banks and cash businesses, to name just a few.

Then there're the incidentals: flowers, sympathy cards and stamps to send them; the balloons, candles and stuffed animals we leave at impromptu memorials, especially when a child - or a police officer - is murdered.

And speaking of law enforcement, guns are a major factor in keeping the law-enforcement economy afloat.

Philly cops are so busy, for instance, that they earned $69 million in overtime last year, according to a recent report by my colleague Bob Warner.

And guess who got the most OT?

Homicide detectives.

Then, there's the money spent on keeping shooters in prison. Last year, local prison guards made $30 million in overtime, Warner reported.

Let's not overlook the moving companies, which make a bundle relocating people from our inner city to safer towns outside city limits. More commuters means more gas to get to work or more fares spent on public transportation.

I'm telling you, the financial benefits of flooding the country with guns are endless.

Why, gun violence generates $90 billion to $100 billion in expenditures a year, according to a book published in 2000 called Gun Violence: The Real Costs.

Finally - although I'm sure I've overlooked something - there's the airline industry, which might benefit from yesterday's ruling by selling one-way tickets to Americans fleeing a country being destroyed by the lunatic fringe of an ideologically driven U.S. Supreme Court.

Me, I'm too patriotic for that.

I'm going to help my country's economy by buying a gun. I hear the AK-47 comes in pink.

E-mail porterj@phillynews.com or call 215-854-5850. For recent columns:

http://go.philly.com/porter

[stephpd]

See, she does understand economics! Of course most of those homicides were committed by felons who couldn't own guns to begin with.

And as far as hospital and funeral costs I guess just putting all that money into the gas tank can stimulate the economy just as much. Costs for those will be just the same whether you kill someone with a gun or car. And cars kill more people everyday then guns do in a year.

So top off your SUV and run over some one while talking on your cell phone and really help the economy. The cash flow will be greater since your now including the oil companies and car insurance. Got to get that tank fixed so you can fill it up again and repeat the cycle.

[mikepro8]

Sad to say, but this lady doesnt understand the economy. I can say that until very recently I didnt have even an inkling myself.

Everyone think for a second - what was the worst economic time in the United States....
Answer: The Great Depression

What world event helped the economy boost the country fully out of the depression? WWII. Making guns, ammo, planes, tanks, creating jobs out the wazoo, etc. etc. etc.

Im not suggesting another world war to solve the economy's woes, but sensationalism by this lady doesnt help either. She is mixing apples and oranges, throwing the typical red herring as other authors like her usually do when they cant win an argument based on facts.

[Autonomous]

I don't know who this jill porter is...
Started off reading this thinking she was another smart person using the economic growth money to buy a gun (hell my brother is planning on doing that)....
Turns out she is just another fanatical member of the lunatic fringe of an ideologically driven group who wants to take away our individual rights recently affirmed by our Supreme Court.
What a weak read. Her arguments would not hold up against any real scrutiny so Im not even gonna bother...
-A

[MrUgly]

Sent her an email.

A lunatic fringe? Really? A Ku Klux Klansman has a right to express his hatred. I don't like it, but I support it. A woman has a right to an abortion. I don't like it, but I support it. A Satanist has a right to practice a Black Mass. I don't like it, but I support it. A journalist has a right to offer unfounded and sarcastic opinions...See where I am going here? Each of these actions is protected by our Constitution. None of them is something I would endorse, but I ardently support the expression of those protected rights. Why would owning a gun be different? You are a writer. You can write prose that can inspire, educate and edify. Or you can write words of hatred and scorn based on nothing more than how vitriolic you are feeling that day. The difference is intent.

I won't jump on the typical "My guns, my rights" bandwagon, the argument is old and you've made up your mind on it. This is cool, as you have a right to your opinion. Might I suggest a study of recidivism in the shooters? How many shooters, murderers, are on the streets because they were let out early or plea-bargained? How many people would be alive today if our criminal justice system worked? Why does no one take the time to look at the reasons these criminals are out there, killing indiscriminately? Would it make the families feel better if their child was knifed to death instead of shot? The person that has decided to kill will use what is available. Sometimes, it happens to be a gun. If there isn’t a gun handy, well, humans are remarkably resourceful.

You know, I have 5 handguns and 4 rifles. Not a one of them has shot anybody. Don't get me wrong, I shoot them several times a month, but they have never been used to kill or injure anyone. Why do you suppose that is? Is it because I am a careful and dedicated owner that safely locks his weapons in a safe when not in use? Is it because I use a retention holster that keeps my carry piece safely on my side when I am going on about my day? Or is it because I value human life and know that the casual misuse of a handgun is not only wrong, but immoral?

[ChamberedRound]

Just another knee-jerk reactionary who's instantly assumes that if guns are taken from the law-abiding, that violent crime will simply cease. Only we're not the ones causing the problem in the first place.

Are people like this ever gonna get it?

[Michele]

Ah, same old song and dance....

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

[Turbinesaint]

Imagine if they decided that freedom of speech is only a collective right and that privately owned newspapers could not print what they wanted. What kind of reaction would that bring about? This is why liberals drive me crazy, you're free to do what you want. . . as long as it fits within our agenda. If not, you must be stupid. Remember, these are the same people who think Ted Kennedy is a saint.

[MrUgly]

I just noticed something:
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/colu...we_all_do.html

It seems to me that the trampling of constitutional rights, if that's what happened here, is just as unacceptable as unjustified physical force.

But Moffat's behavior, however provocative and stupid, is - legal.
It's protected, lest we forget, by the Constitution.

Funny, huh?

[sjl127]

My email I just sent to her:

Grow up.