This is the U.S. guided missile frigate Samuel B. Roberts after striking an Iranian mine. This floating dry dock helped keep the crippled vessel afloat after the attack. (Source/Public domain)
Leadership is a big deal, particularly on the national stage. A nation’s resources or its innate strength really do not matter. If you have weak, feckless leadership, the world will walk all over you. By contrast, lesser nations, if deftly led, can still accomplish truly great things.
Part of the perennial problem is our unique system. It has been said that the American system of governance is the second worst on the planet. It is simply that everybody else ties for first. The rub is that our current political system does not naturally select for the best leaders. It selects for the most productive fundraisers. That is the reason Americans of eras past were led by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, while today, we get whatever it is we have now.
In 1988, Ronald Reagan was President of the United States. While the Gipper and I had some fundamental philosophical disagreements over the machinegun ban of 1986, Reagan was the last American president to seem truly real to me.
I realize he was an actor but listening to his speeches and studying the way he rolled, that guy really did passionately love America. He also was not afraid to unlimber the big stick when the situation demanded it.
This is the Iranian frigate Sahand burning from stem to stern after an
attack by aircraft of the U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing 11. Fifty-five Iranian sailors perished in the inferno. (Source/Public domain)
The Event
On 14 April 1988, the American guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was on routine patrol in international waters in the Persian Gulf when it struck a sea mine. The resulting explosion snapped the keel of the ship and punched through the hull. Only through the skillful and aggressive actions of the captain and her crew was the ship saved. Miraculously, no American lives were lost.
Subsequent assessment of the serial numbers of similar mines recovered in the area showed them to have come from the same lot as a batch seized on an Iranian barge the previous year. Once Reagan was convinced that it was the Iranians who were behind the mining, he let slip the dogs of war. Four days later, the U.S. Navy got busy.
This is the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. Big E formed the backbone of the naval strike group that helped put the holy smackdown on the Iranians after they mined the Persian Gulf.
The Players
Ever since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the Iranians have not played well with others. They are one of the world’s foremost exporters of terrorism, supplying arms and support to Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen, to name but a few.
I really cannot fathom what their philosophical problem might be. They always seem to have some furry turd psychopath calling the shots over there, and it shows.
In 1988, the Iran-Iraq War was still raging apace. Amidst the backdrop of such unfettered chaos, Uncle Sam’s Navy unleashed hell in the form of Operation Praying Mantis. The Navy brought four destroyers, one guided missile cruiser, three frigates, one amphibious transport dock and a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to the party.
Twenty-four hours later, the U.S. Navy had sunk one Iranian frigate, one gunboat and three heavily armed speedboats. We had also crippled a second frigate, destroyed a pair of weaponized oil platforms and blew the wing off of an Iranian F4 Phantom jet.
U.S. forces then intentionally backed off to give the Iranians a chance to quit with dignity. American casualties were limited to two Marine aviators tragically lost when their AH-1T Sea Cobra gunship accidentally crashed into the sea while flying under night vision goggles. Strangely, we did not get much mischief out of the Iranians for quite some time after that decidedly one-sided exchange.
Ruminations
We Americans comprise 4% of the world’s population, yet we are responsible for 25% of the planet’s productivity. Though hardly the largest, ours is hands down the most formidable military in human history. We have spawned more Nobel laureates than the next five countries combined. I don’t mean to be so crass as to trumpet American exceptionalism, but we are objectively exceptional. Unfettered freedom really does work.
Right, wrong or otherwise, strength is the only thing that bad men understand. The world just runs better when everyone fears America. A world without a strong America is like recess without a teacher. In that space, the bullies have the run of the place. It’s a hop, skip and a jump from there to the “Lord of the Flies.” We see such unchecked evil on display in places like Ukraine and Sudan every day on the news.
I don’t pretend to tell anybody how to vote. You don’t want or need my advice, and nobody cares what I think anyway. I do wish Theodore Roosevelt was running for President in 2024. However, today’s Theodore Roosevelts have more sense than to seek that job. These days we’ll just need to work with what we’ve got. Regardless, be informed and vote carefully. The world desperately needs a strong America, whether it acknowledges that fact or not. These elections matter … a lot.
Captain Edwin O. Fisher from 362nd Fighter Group – 377th Fighter Squadron, in his P-47D, #42-26919, nicknamed “Shirley Jane III”, talking to another pilot.
Fisher had the distinction of shooting 3 V-1’s in wartime career. He got all of them on the same day, June 29, 1944. In a 35 day period (July 5th -August 9th, 1944), Fisher swatted down a total of 7 confirmed kills on Luftwaffe Me109s and Focke-Wulf Fw 190s to become the 377th’s only ace of the war. This photo was taken at Rennes-St. Jacques Airfield in early Autumn 1944, with an impressive tally on display!
There’s an interesting report in Health Affairs Scholar which adds a new dimension to the adage that “money talks and B.S. walks.”
According to the authors— Robert Zeithammer, Supriya Kapur, Diana Silver and James Macinko—“While support for firearm restrictions in alcohol-serving venues is widespread, even modest implementation costs significantly reduce public backing.” It is an interesting read, and the authors deserve credit for broaching a subject which has gotten very little attention. Simply put: “How much are you willing to pay for the restrictive ‘feel good’ law you want to impose?”
The UCLA Anderson Review looked at the report and summed it up: Setting an annual tax of, say, $100 per taxpayer “seems to erode backing for restrictions on guns in alcohol-serving establishments.” In other words, people are keen about gun control so long as they don’t have to pay for it.
Amusingly, the UCLA Anderson Review observes, “The results suggest voters, given a price for a law, can be stingy, even in matters of public safety.”
Gun Control Support Weakens When Taxpayers Face the Bill
The discussion by Zeithammer and his colleagues focuses on a question about prohibiting firearms in establishments where alcohol is served. Regulations vary from state to state—in Washington, for example, people cannot carry firearms into areas of an establishment posted off-limits to anyone under age 21, because alcohol is served, yet someone can remain in the dining area and possibly have a cocktail, even if they’re discreetly packing, or if others at their table are drinking—while the authors note, “A recently published analysis of the current legal landscape found 10 different types of alcohol-related firearm laws, with nearly every state having passed at least 1 of these types of laws.”
The Anderson Review article notes, “These restrictions vary widely. Texas, for example, prohibits guns in establishments that get at least 51% of their revenue from alcohol sales, while New Mexico bans concealed firearms in any premise where alcohol is consumed.”
The notion of adding a cost-per-taxpayer to restricting guns in bars—and the reaction to it—may open up a broader conversation about gun control. Gun control supporters evidently get less enthusiastic about enforcing the laws they push when they have to specifically dig into their wallets to pay for it.
A $100 Tax Changes Attitudes Toward Firearm Restrictions
As noted in the study abstract, “Results show that when no enforcement costs are included, a majority of the respondent sample weighted to voting-eligible Americans (56%-74%, depending on the restricted group and venue size) supports firearm restrictions, with support exceeding 65% for restrictions in large venues.
However, introducing a $100 annual cost reduces support: significant majority support remains only for restricting combinations of felons, intoxicated people, or those with alcohol-related convictions and only in large venues.”
How’s that for a strategy to cool the verbal jets of gun prohibitionists? For each restrictive law they force on gun owners, they get billed for their enthusiasm.
While this may initially seem humorous to Second Amendment activists, Zeithammer, Kapur, Silver and Macinko have actually cracked open a “Pandora’s Box” of sorts, which amounts to an uncomfortable revelation: Gun control supporters aren’t so willing to “put their money where their mouth is.” The four researchers may have done a major public service.
Their research also sought reaction to prohibitions on guns in theaters and other “large venues.”
What the Gun Control Study Reveals About Public Opinion
There are three key points in the Health Affairs Scholar report:
- While a majority of respondents favor firearm restrictions in alcohol-serving venues, support is stronger for larger venues and varies modestly by the targeted population.
- Introducing even modest individual costs (eg, $100 annually) substantially reduces majority support, highlighting the importance of cost framing in legislative proposals.
- Support is more strongly associated with gender and political affiliation (highest among women across political parties) than firearm ownership status.
The Anderson Review article includes a link to the Brady Campaign website, where one reads this claim: “Every year, gun violence kills over 40,000 people and wounds over 75,000 others in the United States. Gun violence costs the United States $557 billion annually – equivalent to 2.6% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.
That’s more than twice what the Department of Education spent to educate US youth in FY 2022 ($235.74 billion). Every year, gun violence costs taxpayers $12.62 billion – or $273,904 per firearm death and $25,150 per nonfatal firearm injury.”
However, if one follows the links, one winds up at another report, from the Harvard Medical School in 2022, which refers to “research by Zirui Song, associate professor of health care policy in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School and associate professor of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital.”
This report also notes, “In his newest paper, published Sept. 27 in JAMA, Song reported that the overall economic cost of firearm injuries in the United States has been estimated at $557 billion annually, or 2.6 percent of gross domestic product.”
It’s an estimate, which Brady passes off as gospel.
And for the sake of argument, one might observe that “gun violence” doesn’t kill anyone. People misusing firearms are responsible for those fatalities, not the firearms, themselves.
Should Gun Control Advocates Have to Explain the Cost?
But the discussion is now launched, courtesy of the four researchers. Should every proposed gun control law include a cost-per-taxpayer for implementation, so that supporters understand how much money their ideas might pull from their checkbooks?
It could spawn an entirely new debate that puts a price tag on anti-gun activism.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.