Economics in the Media…

…from “Foreign UN Delegates Were Shocked By Lack Of Gender Equality In The US” by Alexandra Svokos on EliteDaily.com dated 16 December, 2015:

United Nations delegates from Poland, the United Kingdom and Costa Rica visited Texas, Alabama and Oregon to analyze gender equality in the United States, according to Huffington Post.

They reportedly found we’re not doing so hot.

On the issue of gun violence, they pointed out the lack of federal laws protecting women. While some states have laws preventing people with records of domestic violence from owning guns, there is no national law. The delegates apparently believe there should be.

There is, in fact, a national law:

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban often called “the Lautenberg Amendment” (“Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence”, Pub.L. 104–208, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)) is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as “the Lautenberg Amendment” after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D – NJ).

Economics in the Media…

…from “The U.N. Sent 3 Foreign Women To The U.S. To Assess Gender Equality. They Were Horrified.” on HuffingtonPost.com on December 15th by Laura Bassett:

A delegation of human rights experts from Poland, the United Kingdom and Costa Rica spent 10 days this month touring the United States so they can prepare a report on the nation’s overall treatment of women. The three women, who lead a United Nations working group on discrimination against women, visited Alabama, Texas and Oregon to evaluate a wide range of U.S. policies and attitudes, as well as school, health and prison systems.

Another main area of concern for the delegation is violence against women — particularly gun violence. Women are 11 times more likely to be killed by a gun in the United States than in other high-income countries, and most of those murders are perpetrated by an intimate partner. While the Obama administration has talked a lot about combatting [sic] violence against women, its efforts have been frustrated by Congress’ inability to pass new federal gun restrictions.

“Some states have introduced gun control laws regarding domestic violence, refusing to give perpetrators of domestic violence the right to possess firearms,” [Frances] Raday, [the delegate from the UK] said. “This should be a national policy, not an isolated state policy.”

This is already national policy. But whatevs:

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban often called “the Lautenberg Amendment” (“Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence”, Pub.L. 104–208, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)) is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as “the Lautenberg Amendment” after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D – NJ).

 

 

No cognitive dissonance for politicians

I’m not that big on the gun debate, but A. Barton Hinkle at Hit&Run uses the current debate raging to offer a good critique of the incoherence of many partisans from both sides of the aisle, although I’m not quite sure too many of them feel any psychological urge to resolve that incoherence.

A slice from his concluding paragraphs:

Such team-sports fealty ends in absurdity. To conservatives, the federal government’s potential for domestic tyranny justifies armed resistance—but that same government can do no wrong in the war on terror. To liberals, the same government that is a half-step away from fascism in the war on terror is our benevolent guardian against domestic firearms.

ASTRTWT