Have Gun, will Travel; Have Gun, will Kill

   Some pack a gun with them wherever they go. I wonder if that only increases the chances of death. I think of how a portion of gun deaths come when criminals kill other criminals, drug deals gone bad, and such.
   The gun is there, and the gun is used.
   It's been said, Have gun, will travel. We could add, Have gun, will kill. If you travel with a gun, you increase the chances you will die by the gun. Or, if not you, another person will. We assume the bad guys kill each other simply because they are bad guys, and that is true. What goes unsaid, however, is that the fact they have guns also is a contributing factor.
   When a prosecuting attorney makes his case, he often determines opportunity. Well, if guns are present, the opportunity to kill increases.
   My town, Salt Lake City, is now flowing with the discussion of a middle-of-the-night gun battle between homeowner Rusty Jacobs and home invader Jesse Bruner. Bruner, whether he was looking for an empty home to sleep in or what, tried to kick in Jacobs' door in the middle of the night. Jacobs got up, and was looking around when Bruner greeted him, telling him he had a bad leg. When Bruner left, Jacobs, gun in tow, followed him down the street, pointing a flashlight at him, and perhaps suggesting he knew Bruner was a person who had been involved in home break-ins of late.
   Bruner also carried a gun, a sawed-off shotgun.
   Bruner shot, and Jacobs fired back. They died together in the streets.
  We don't know whether Bruner saw Jacobs had a gun, and was intimidated by that, and therefore was more inclined to use his own gun, but it is fair to wonder.
  Hindsight says Jacobs would have been better off leaving it to law enforcement, instead of chasing down the street with a gun, intimidating a known criminal. Bruner's rap sheet included weapons charges. He was a man who lived by the gun, whose mind frame was that you settle some of your differences with a gun. Had Jacobs known that, how would he have expected Bruner to react?
   And, perhaps the mind frame of settling differences with a gun was, in part, the mind set of Rusty Jacobs. Society teaches protection of self and family with a gun. If you have a spat with a criminal, settle it with bullets. That will save you and your family.
   Lest you not think settling his differences with Bruner was part of his mind set, remember Jacobs could have waited for the police. If he had to follow Bruner, he could have done it from a distance, just staying close enough to see where Bruner was so he could steer the police to him.
   After the killings, police, in a statement to the media, urged homeowners to let them do the work, saying that was their job. I think that wise. I think it wise that the police took the opportunity to teach the public. We are what we are taught to be. If society teaches us to be one way, we often turn out that way. If we teach each other to stand up to the criminals, that will happen. Sometimes, it will go smoothly, but sometimes it will go awry, such as it did with Jacobs.
   Usually, police can do their job better than we can. Let them. As is said, Johnny, don't be a hero. While it is honorable to protect yourself and your family, remember the saying, Wisdom is the better part of valor.
   Travel with a gun, die with a gun. Have gun will travel; have gun will kill. It doesn't always turn out that way. But, there is an increased tendency that direction.

Maybe what is Happening makes a Case for Police, not Citizen Justice

   Does what is going on in Israel make a better argument for letting police handle violence as opposed to sending everyone out onto the streets with a weapon to defend themselves?
   In the past weeks, believing the number of attacks by Palestinians upon Israelis was terribly high, I wrote that perhaps arming the people is the way to deal with the violence. I reasoned that if the attacks are happening extremely often, and if the police cannot get there in time, then perhaps the populace needs to defend itself.
   Six days ago, I thought I had read somewhere that more than 1,000 attacks by the Palestinians upon Israelis had been committed. I've continued to search for a figure on how many attacks there have been, and have not found a count. But I'm now thinking the figure must be much, much less, but a fraction of that.
   What I am reading, is that only 11 Israelis have been killed while about 40 Palestinians have had their lives taken while attempting the attacks. That gives pause. If the count of attacks by the Palestinians is a high number, but the total of people being killed is not, then the wave of violence against the Israelis isn't very successful.
   Why?
   It appears the police are getting there in time to quell the attackers. Yes, sometimes the attackers are stopped by the armed citizens who are being attacked, but it seems the better share of attacks have been thwarted by the police.
   So, police work is working.
    I do wonder. Other than just a good police response, are there other reasons most of the attacks do not bring death? Or, am I wrong to believe there are a lot of attacks? If there are a lot of attacks, are the assailants incompetent?
    It is interesting that al-Jazeera and others are able to point to what is going on, and spin it that it is the Israelis who are the perpetrators of violence, what with so many Palestinians being killed by the Israeli police.
   Of that, I wonder if the Israeli police are shooting to kill, when killing the assailant might not be necessary. I do wonder, just as I wonder whether sometimes police in the U.S. shoot to kill too often.
If you can save a life, do it, even if it is an assailant's life.
   And, also, why are we not finding a count on the number of attacks? It seems that count is central to the story of what is going on. How can it not be being reported? Is the number of attacks not much above the 11 who have been killed, and therefore the 11 who have been killed is the only number we need?
   If about about 40 of the assailants have been killed while making the attacks, does that mean there have only been about 40 attacks? And, if those 40 attacks resulted in only 11 Israelis being killed, that still is not a very good success rate for the assailants.
   Thank heavens for that, but one wonders why they are not more successful.

I See 'You cannot put a Price on Your Health' in a New Light

   "You cannot put a price on your health" That's a thought I no longer give homage to. Not that it isn't true. Not that our health isn't worth all the money we have.
   But, I look at how the health care providers go after you for your money. I, myself, owe about 20 grand. I consider how expensive health care is, and I see, "You cannot put a price on your health," in a new light.
   The statement justifies the expense. It says, "Just go ahead and pay the bill, because regardless how high it is, it is justified by the fact you cannot put a price on your health."
   I wonder how many times the collection agencies, collecting on big bills such as mine, roll this pitch out to their debtors. "You cannot put a price on your health"?
   I only know the price is exorbitant, and out of measure with what it should be. Medical bills are a constant form of price gouging. Yes,"You cannot put a price on your health," and therein lies the problem: You have no choice. You cannot cap the price tag. You cannot limit how much they charge you for your health.

Don't Leave a One of Them Without Health Care, but have Them Work

   Are we to consider it wrong for a person who has not been working for 20 years to receive Medicaid benefits? Some consider it wrong. Their thought is, that if he hasn't been paying taxes, and now of a sudden expects health care, then he is expecting someone else to pay his bills. That is just wrong, they say. Why should one person reach into another's pocket and expect that person to pay his bills?
   For my part, I think Medicaid should pay the way for those who do not have private insurance. The high price of our medical care makes it so no one can afford care unless they have insurance. I do not like the notion of not covering a person, any person, regardless whether they have been working and been paying taxes. To me, you just don't let a person die -- and some of them do die. Nor do you deprive them of health care that is crucial even if they are not dying. You provide them care, simply because they need it.
   In theory, though, I do think we should have them work when they reach that point, when they reach the juncture of receiving Medicaid. In practicality, however, I can see this often would be difficult. I think in some cases -- say they are so incapacitated they can hardly get out of bed, for example -- actually having them do any work would be a hard thing to accomplish. 
   But, many of them can work. Those who can, should. We should revamp our system to allow it. We should place all those who can do such work into productive jobs.

Medicaid Expansion is a Must

   I have wondered and been perplexed as Utah has put off and put off expanding its Medicaid program to cover more people. Obamacare calls for more coverage, and the Obama Administration is willing to let Utah come up with its own program instead of just having traditional Medicaid cover those in the income gap not being covered.
   But, proposal after proposal is being defeated. It seems obvious enough that there are people in the coverage gap who are dying for lack of medical options.
   Dying, while we sit and try to come up with a "Utah solution."
   Can we not see? We cannot say, "No, we cannot cover them because that would be giving them free welfare. Let them die." We cannot say, "Our national debt is $18-plus trillion. We had better not help them, because we cannot afford it. Let them die."
   We cannot let them die, while we postpone action. The issue is serious enough, that, if necessary, the Legislature should meet day after day, sticking to it without breaking session until a solution is arrived at.

This Study Might have Contributed to the National Debt

   Comes a story from the Los Angeles Times, and I just wonder. It says a study has revealed that our ancient ancestors were as sleep deprived as we are. One immediately wonders how they would ever determine such a thing.
   Well, they studied three three societies alive today, three groups of people that haven't caught up with technology and still live ancient-like lives: the Hazda, San, and Tsimane societies.
   I am sure I'm not the only person who wonders about that methodology. While such a study can be used to suggest the pressures of modern technology might not be limiting our sleep, it seems wrong to stretch the conclusions even further and quantify how much sleep our ancient ancestors received. For one thing, there might have been biological differences at play.
  But, a second thing bothers me about this study: Who paid for it? Where did UCLA's Center for Sleep Research get the money to pay for this study?
  Inasmuch as the story does not reveal who footed the bill, it is fair to wonder. And, the leading possible party would likely be Uncle Sam. I think back to my youth, when we lamented the waste of such studies when they were government-funded, and wonder whether this study drew similar response. If it was funded, even in part, with government funds, then such criticism is warranted. We are $18-plus trillion in debt, and should be looking to ax wasteful spending wherever we see it.

Cigarettes, Meat, and the LDS People

   There is the verse in Doctrine and Covenants 49 that says, "And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God." And, even in the Word of Wisdom (Section 89) it says that flesh is ordained for the use of man.
   But, then comes the qualifier, then comes the part that says how much: ". . . nevertheless they are to be used sparingly." So it is, the Word of Wisdom instructs the LDS faithful to not eat too much meat.
   It will be interesting to see how we, as LDS people, play today's revelation from the World Health Organization that processed meat is linked to cancer, and that red meat is also risky. I understand, the tendencies to get cancer from meat are not near so strong as they are to cigarettes.
   Still, the risk is strong enough that WHO has issued its warning.