I guess having all these guns does have its advantages.

I don't always agree with Philadelphia Daily News columnist Jill Porter---if I remember correctly, she even ripped family court a time or two when I was an administrator there---.

But her article concerning guns, gun violence, and its disturbing and frightening effects on our community was right on point. And she raises some relevant economic issues that I didn't even consider.

Here is what she wrote:

I 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. "


Come on Jill, the supremes are "ideologically driven"? Noooooo.


Honestly, as someone who has manged to make a pretty good living off of guns and gun violence myself, I sometimes wonder how I even ended up on this side of the debate ( Talk about fighting against your own best interest). Maybe it's ideological with me, and maybe it's because I look at the big picture where others only see their individual condition. But whatever it is, for better or for worse, I am going to keep fighting and hoping that common sense will win out in the end.



Someone asked me in a previous post what I would do to stop it, and I tried answering the person in my own sarcastic way. So let me try to tell that person again in a way that he/she will understand:


In order to stop gun violence we must stop electing politricksters who insist on sucking at the tit of the gun lobby, so that shit like this doesn't happen.



We must allow local governments to make laws that restrict and limit gun purchases, implement serious background checks, and ban the purchase of assault weapons.


The Federal government must get serious about the sham of an assault weapon's ban that's in place now.


We must get serious about this phony ass war on drugs and decriminalize certain drugs.


And we must make sure that we elect a president that will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will fashion sensible laws and take a practical view of the Constitution -The next prez. might have as much as three appointments.


Those are just some of my plans for these Divided States of America. Now if you want to come to "Fieldville", it will be a whole different set of rules. And I guarantee you that you NRA types won't like them. But hey, we live in A-merry-ca, and your laws rule the day. At least for now.