A Scientific Consensus on Global Climate Change?

          Imagine this: Over the period of several weeks you notice a small lump growing under your skin on your neck area. You are uncertain what it is or what it could mean but you know enough to know that it could be a dangerous cancerous lump. What do you do? Should you Google it? Should you ask your friends? Should you ask respected scholars? Should you go see a medical doctor? Or should you just ignore it and hope that it goes away?

          To most outsiders the answer seems very obvious – go see a doctor; He will know best what it could be and what to do about it. However, for those in similar situations, history has shown that each of the above answered have frequently been employed in such life or death choices, sometimes with fatal consequences. Does the doctor know for sure the answer? Rarely, if ever. Does he guarantee his solution will work? No. Does he guarantee it is even the best solution? No. But who better is there to answer those questions than a medical doctor? Surely not your friends or family, not one with a Doctorate of Philosophy in Music Theory, not those who yell loudest, but those who have the most training on the subject. We can apply this hypothetical situation to the current dispute over  anthropogenic climate change, commonly known as global climate change or global warming.

          There is very little debate among informed individuals of whether the earth has been getting warmer, all one must do to observe this is to look at the direct temperature reading that have been taken over the years.  I would assume that our thermometers wouldn't lie to us.   I also believe that most would concede that the potential extreme consequences that are proposed by some would have devastating effects on the earth and it's inhabitants. More in the limelight of the climate change debate is whether or not humans are causing this warming, whether the climate is changing a significant amount, and whether we can stop it. We figuratively have a large lump on our neck - there are vast evidences of climate change in the world today. The real question is: what are we going to do about it? Where can we go to get the best answers? Who are the doctors in this situation? Who are the experts?

          The experts, or doctors, in global climate change are those who are actively studying and publishing in peer-reviewed journals on the issue of global climate change. They are the climatologists , those who are trained and publish within the issues of the climate. Although everyone’s opinion does count if we want the best results and the best answers we must go to those who know the most about the issues. Further, just because someone has a doctorate does not qualify him to speak on the issue with authority. Once again, you would not go to one with a doctorate of philosophy in music to diagnose your potentially cancerous lump.

          So what do the experts in climate change say? In this article I will discuss three of the major measurements of this question:

1. What is the opinion of individual experts? 
2. What do the peer-reviewed research papers say on the matter? 
3. What do prevalent and relevant societies have to say about the matter?  

          I will only examine singular instances and studies.

          In a 2009 poll by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman, in which 3,146 earth scientists responded 75 out of the 77 (97.4%) published climatologists believed humans were a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. The study’s results also show a general positive correlation between education and a belief in  anthropogenic climate change.

          Naomi Oreskes performed a study on 928 peer-reviewed abstracts between 1993 and 2003 that had the key-word “global climate change” in which she reviewed the abstracts view on the legitimacy of anthropogenic climate change. She found that 20% explicitly endorsed  anthropogenic climate change, 55% implicitly endorsed it, while the remaining 25% did not take a stance on validity. Tellingly, there were no abstracts that explicitly rejected anthropogenic climate change.

          Julie Brigham-Grett stated in 2006, "...the AAPG [American Association of Petroleum Geologists] stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming." However, since 2006 that organization, AAPG, has changed its statement which, according to Bigham-Grett, means that no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

          My conclusion in review of this and other such studies have lead me to believe that there is no significant debate among relevant practicing scientists about the validity of anthropogenic climate change. While there are people who are very intelligent, knowledgeable, and accredited who oppose anthropogenic climate change, there are also examples of intelligent, knowledgeable, and accredited people who dispute almost every scientific theory in any subject including gravity,micro and macro evolution, and the big bang.

          Will there ever be a complete consensus on global climate change? Probably not. Will the experts always have the best answer? Maybe not. But who would better know what to do than those who have dedicated their lives to this cause? I am content to believe the vast majority of leading scientists on the topics in the field. I am not a scientist, I do not know the majority of science behind global climate change, nor do I really feel a need to learn them to be confident in my choice. Climatology is not my field of expertise. My personal overarching questions are “who would know best?” and “who will I trust with my children’s lives?” With democracy widespread in most all progressive countries we have a personal moral responsibility and stewardship over this earth; our voices count. We need to listen to what the experts are warning us about and move forward with the best scientific knowledge that they have to offer.

Carbon Dioxide(CO2) Emissions by Country per Capita

Works Cited 

Brigham-Grette,  J., Anderson, S., Clague, J., Cole, J., Doran, P., Gillespie, A., ... Styles, B. (2006). Petroleum geologists' award to novelist crichton Is inappropriate. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 87. p. 36. 

Doran, P., & Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change.           Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 90.3 : p. 22.

Census Bureau (2011) . International programs. Census Bureau Home Page. U.S. 

Oreskes, N. (2004) Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306.5702.

Polling Report, Company (2011). PollingReport.com. 

The Index of Economic Freedom

            For the past fifteen years, The Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal have computed the Index of Economic Freedom. This index measures and ranks the economic freedom of countries around the world. It does so by measuring 10 broad economic factors:

1. Business Freedom
2. Trade Freedom
3. Monetary Freedom
4. Government Size
5. Fiscal Freedom
6. Property Rights
7. Investment Freedom
8. Financial Freedom
9. Freedom from Corruption
10. and Labor Freedom

Each of these factors are weighted equally and measured on a 0-100 scale where 0 represent no freedom and 100 represents absolute freedom.

The Benefits Economic Freedom

            The main assumption in the index is that economic freedom is a positive cultural and societal influence. It is geared towards the idea that the ideal economy to be a capitalistic system. Honorable Elaine L. Chao, 24th United States Secretary of Labor, said of economic freedom:

“History has proven that trade freedom is the best economic strategy for all of the world’s peoples. History has also shown that we are prone to ignore history.

Since 1979, the value of world exports has risen by an average of 7.1 percent annually. During that same period, world income has skyrocketed. Gross domestic product (GDP) for the world as a whole, measured in constant 2000 U.S. dollars, has risen from $17.5 trillion in 1979 to $40.3 trillion in 2008. Even on a per capita basis, GDP growth has been impressive, jumping from $4,002 to $6,023...

Few would doubt the relationship between increased trade flows and the rapid worldwide economic growth at the end of the 20th century…”

(Terry Miller and Kim R. Holmes. 2010 Index of Economic Freedom. New York: Wall Street Journal, 2010. PG 13.)

While it is true that most would agree that economic freedom is good, individuals such as Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, contest that economic openness... in his book The End of Poverty in which Sachs' argues that poor countries are stuck in poverty which there is no escape except by significant contributions of foreign aid. 

Although the benefits of economic freedom could be contended it is said by one of his students that Sachs admitted that “the path to long-term development would only be achieved through private sector involvement and free market solutions". Although the degree to which economic freedom provides utility may be disputed, it is a general consensus that economic freedom is a good thing and an economical beneficial system.

The Factors of the Index

The ten factors that constitute the Index of Economic Freedom are defined as follows (as is described by the organization itself):

Business Freedom

Business freedom is a quantitative measure of the ability to start, operate, and close a business that represents the overall burden of regulation as well as the efficiency of government in the regulatory process. The business freedom score for each country is a number between 0 and 100, with 100 equaling the freest business environment. The score is based on 10 factors, all weighted equally, using data from the World Bank’s Doing Business study… Each of these raw factors is converted to a scale of 0 to 100, after which the average of the converted values is computed.

Trade Freedom

Trade freedom is a composite measure of the absence of tariff and non-tariff barriers that affect imports and exports of goods and services. The trade freedom score is based on two inputs: The trade-weighted average tariff rate and Non-tariff barriers (NTBs).

Different imports entering a country can, and often do, face different tariffs. The weighted average tariff uses weights for each tariff based on the share of imports for each good. Weighted average tariffs are a purely quantitative measure and account for the basic calculation of the score using the following equation:

Fiscal Freedom

Fiscal freedom is a measure of the tax burden imposed by government. It includes both the direct tax burden in terms of the top tax rates on individual and corporate incomes and the overall amount of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. Thus, the fiscal freedom component is composed of three quantitative factors: The top tax rate on individual income, The top tax rate on corporate income, and Total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP.

In scoring the fiscal freedom component, each of these numerical variables is weighted equally as one-third of the factor.

Government Spending

 No attempt has been made to identify an ideal level of government expenditures. The ideal level will vary from country to country, depending on factors ranging from culture to geography to level of development. The methodology treats zero government spending as the benchmark, and underdeveloped countries with little government capacity may receive artificially high scores as a result. However, such governments, which can provide few if any public goods, will be penalized by lower scores on some of the other components of economic freedom (such as property rights and financial freedom).

The scale for scoring government spending is non-linear, which means that government spending that is close to zero is lightly penalized, while levels of government spending that exceed 30 percent of GDP receive much worse scores in a quadratic fashion (e.g., doubling spending yields four times less freedom), so that only really large governments receive very low scores.

Monetary Freedom
Monetary freedom combines a measure of price stability with an assessment of price controls. Both inflation and price controls distort market activity. Price stability without microeconomic intervention is the ideal state for the free market. The score for the monetary freedom factor is based on two factors: The weighted average inflation rate for the most recent three years and price controls.

Investment Freedom

 In an economically free country, there would be no constraints on the flow of investment capital. Individuals and firms would be allowed to move their resources into and out of specific activities both internally and across the country’s borders without restriction. Such an ideal country would receive a score of 100 on the investment freedom component of the Index of Economic Freedom.

Financial Freedom

 Financial freedom is a measure of banking security as well as a measure of independence from government control. State ownership of banks and other financial institutions such as insurers and capital markets reduces competition and generally lowers the level of available services.

The Index scores this component by determining the extent of government regulation of financial services; the extent of state intervention in banks and other financial services; the difficulty of opening and operating financial services firms (for both domestic and foreign individuals); and government influence on the allocation of credit. This analysis is used to develop a description of the country’s financial climate and assign an overall score on a scale of 0 to 100 through a comparison of standards.

Property Freedom

The property rights component is an assessment of the ability of individuals to accumulate private property, secured by clear laws that are fully enforced by the state. It measures the degree to which a country’s laws protect private property rights and the degree to which its government enforces those laws. It also assesses the likelihood that private property will be expropriated and analyzes the independence of the judiciary, the existence of corruption within the judiciary, and the ability of individuals and businesses to enforce contracts. The more certain the legal protection of property, the higher a country’s score; similarly, the greater the chances of government expropriation of property, the lower a country’s score.

Freedom from Corruption

Corruption erodes economic freedom by introducing insecurity and uncertainty into economic relationships. The score for this component is derived primarily from Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) for 2008, which measures the level of corruption in 180 countries.

The CPI is based on a 10-point scale in which a score of 10 indicates very little corruption and a score of 0 indicates a very corrupt government. In scoring freedom from corruption, the Index converts the raw CPI data to a scale of 0 to 100 by multiplying the CPI score by 10

For countries that are not covered in the CPI, the freedom from corruption score is determined by using the qualitative information from internationally recognized and reliable sources. This procedure considers the extent to which corruption prevails in a country.

Labor Freedom

The labor freedom component is a quantitative measure that looks into various aspects of the legal and regulatory framework of a country's labor market. It provides cross-country data on regulations concerning minimum wages; laws inhibiting layoffs; severance requirements; and measurable regulatory burdens on hiring, hours, and so on.

Six quantitative factors are equally weighted, with each counted as one-sixth of the labor freedom component: Ratio of minimum wage to the average value added per worker, Hindrance to hiring additional workers, Rigidity of hours, Difficulty of firing redundant employees, Legally mandated notice period, and Mandatory severance pay.

Average Score Out of 179 Countries
Overall Freedom	59.37
Business Freedom	64.4
Trade Freedom	74.2
Fiscal Freedom	75.4
Government Freedom	65.0
Monetary Freedom	70.6
Investment Freedom	49.0
Financial Freedom	48.5
Property Rights	43.8
Freedom from Corruption	40.5
Labor Freedom	62.1

The Results
            Overall, there are 179 countries measure and ranked.  For a full list of rankings and score please see the full list on their website at www.heritage.org/index/Ranking. Here I will only list the top ten economically free countries, as well as a few other countries of personal interest to me. Folloing is the map of economic freedom published by the society as well as the top ten free economic nation for the 2010 study:

(Click to Enlarge)

Netted

Top 10 Countries of 2010

(Click to enlarge)

It is interesting to note that Hong Kong is, and has been, the top leader in Economic Freedom since the study was inarguated in 1995.  Looking at Hong Kong, it is inescapable to juxtapose it with China, which is ranked 140th (see Countries of Interest Table). Hong Kong has been extremely economically stable and productive. In 2009, Hong Kong netted 2.3 trillion dollars in initial public offering (IPO), which constitutes 22 percent of the entirety of worldwide initial public offerings (whereas Hong Kong only constitutes .13 percent of the population)
 This makes Hong Kong the largest IPO contributer of the world. The comparison between Hong Kong and mainland China is an excellent example of the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism. In comparison, the People's Republic of China is significantly less economically prosperous (Hong Kong GDP PPP - $42,653, Peoples Republic of China - GDP PPP - $6,778), China's efforts to integrate the best practices of private industry. 

In the top ten there are some large(relative) jumps in percentages. Hong Kong is a full 3.6 percent higher than Singapore, which in turn is 3.5 percent higher than the next highest country Australia making Hong Kong a full 8.4 percent higher than the third place Australia. The other big jump in the top ten is the 2.4 percent jump from position seven Canada and position eight the United States of America. 

Another interesting point to examine are the progress of the countries economic freedom from the previous years. This following year there were a two significant changes in the top ten free countries of 2010. The first and largest is the United States with one of the largest changes in the index this year with a decease of 2.7 percent. As can be seen in the graph below the United states has stayed for the most part stable on the high end of the chart but for the last four years the United States has been slowly decreasing in economic freedom with this year being the largest jump yet. The other significant change this year is Denmark (not shown in below graph) which decreased 1.7 percent. Denmark has only recently made it to this hight of economic freedom. In the early 2000's Denmark was scoring in the high 60's but last year scored a rounded 80 and has unfortunately decreased significantly this year.

  Examining the long term change shows interesting trend especially in a few of the below countries. Canada in particular has a very impressive increase in economic freedom showing relatively low rates in the mid 1990's but pulling out and ending up on a very impressive slope leading to where it is now. Also very impressive is Australia, New Zealand who shows persistent increase over time even when they have impressive above average scores. Mexico shows very rapid progress over the past few years. Somewhat troubling are the graphs for the United States and the United Kingdom who both had slow progress cumulating in 2006 but since has declined steadily for the past four year with this year being the most significant decrease. This could be attributed to the effects and measures taken during and after the financial crisis of 2007. 

Countries of Interest

Following are some countries' statistics of economic freedom that might be on interest to others, for a full list of rankings and score please see the full list on their website at www.heritage.org/index/Ranking . 

Conclusion

Economic freedom is the road to freedom and prosperity. As we continue to seek to promote personal freedom we help each other to create quality affordable products to aid us in our everyday lifestyle. We help progress technology by promoting worthwhile products and ideas. As we petition for greater economic freedom we can hope to see a better world for us and for our children.  

---

UPDATE 20011

Top Ten of 2011
1  - Hong Kong    (previously #1, 0.0)
2  - Singapore      (previously #2,    +1.1)
3  - Australia        (previously #3,     -0.1)
4  - New Zealand (previously #4,    +0.2)
5  - Switzerland    (previously #6,    +0.8)
6  - Canada          (previously #7,     +0.4)
7  - Ireland           (previously #5,     -2.6)
8  - Denmark        (previously #9,    +0.7)
9  - United States  (previously #8,     -0.2)
10- Bahrain          (previously #>10, +1.4)


We see that Ireland took a dive(-2.6) giving place for a steadily increasing Switzerland(+0.8) and Canada(+.04). It is cited that "its score has decreased... particularly for government spending and financial freedom...". America has also dropped a slot from last year with a net lost of 0.2 allowing denmark to take its place. Bahrain makes it into the top ten displacing Chile to the 11th position which actually increased by 0.2 from last year. Bahrain is the leader in economic freedom in the Middle East/Northern Africa area.


 The overall trend mentioned in the comparative graph above remains generally true: Canada and New Zealand(+0.2) has continued  to increase. Australia had a slight decline (-0.1) which may be ominous as the score seems to have somewhat platoued over the past several years hopefully it has not topped out. Both the United States and the United Kingdom continue their descent downward. The United Kingdom dropped 2 full points this past year due mainly to Government Spending and Fiscal Freedom.

Utilitarianism and Gun Control

Utilitarianism is the belief that morals should be governed in quantitative happiness; that one’s actions should be governed by asking yourself the question “What will bring the greatest amount of happiness to greatest amount of people”.  It makes morals a mathematical formula rather than a subjective religious or belief system.

When talking about utilitarianism, there are two names which are attributed to its' rise: Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832)(above on the right) and John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873)(above on the left), both British philosophers. Bentham in particular was a staunch believer in quantifiable ethics wherein happiness is paramount. It is the foundation of the belief that the good of the community is simply the sum of the pleasures of the individuals' that comprise it.

Bentham identifies seven categories of calculation when considering a choice: Intensity, Duration, Certainty, Propinquity, Fecundity, Purity, and Extent. To quantify happiness we can divide a a total of 10 points between dichotomous options. Each point represents a degree of happiness relative to the other option(s).

To demonstrate and define each of these categories I will take a current event and go through these categories to see what ethical action would be correct in the eyes of these utilitarian’s. The issue that I will be discussing is whether or not guns should be more difficult to purchase. Should we increase the training expectations and prerequisites of buying a gun? Let us look at the criteria and the point breakdown.

Intensity

            Intensity can be simply defined as pleasure, generally in a very sensual immediate way. To determine this, you can ask “how strong is the pleasure?”

In regards to gun control, many people use guns as a form of recreation and receive pleasure from using them. Guns also gives you a feeling of independence with the ability to defend yourself if needs be. For a small population, guns also increase access to rare food through hunting.Increasing gun control would lower the percent of people that would have this pleasure while not using them would not net you any additional pleasure at all. 

In opposition, shooting or owning guns does not give everyone pleasure and for some may puts added weight on their lives which could diminish potential future pleasure. Owning a gun has been correlated with increased risk of violent death (not necessarily caused). Owning guns also increases the change for firearm accidents. Also, while much debate has centered around gun control and gun crime rates, by comparing 1st world countries, there is a correlation between gun ownership and crime. Theoretically effective gun control should decrease crime.  Also there would be negative pleasure for people if you were to be shot by a gun, if your animals were killed, if the gun was used to take away pleasure from other people. Guns have been a chief tool of pain in the 20^th and 21^st centuries. 

Keeping in mind we are looking at intensity, the potential happiness gained by owning a gun seems much lower than the potential decrease in happiness from owning guns (e.g. getting shot, higher crime). This category would most likely favor increasing gun control as there is more potential pain than there is pleasure to be gained.  Let us make the ratio 7/3 for gun control.

	Further Restrict Gun Control	No Further Gun Control
Intensity	7	3

Duration

            Duration can be defined as the length of the pleasure. So we ask ourselves, “how long will those pleasures last?”

            How long would the pleasure last of gaining more gun control than to not? The potential gain of further gun control could include peace of mind and security knowing that guns were under heavier moderation and potential depravities were less likely to occur, this would last indefinitely. It would also arguably firearm abuse and displeasure caused by them. Possibly the greatest factor is the displeasure that could be averted by the harms created by misappropriate use of firearms. The potential duration of such unhappiness is very lasting. 

          In opposition there is momentary pleasure revived from recreational gunmanship, there is also a long lasting potential safety and security of mind that owner’s, if restricted the number of participants would be reduced. All in all there is more happiness to be found, or unhappiness averted, in restricting gun control than in keeping it as it is. Let us make the ratio 8/2 in favor of gun control.

	Further Restrict Gun Control	No Further Gun Control
Intensity	7	3
Duration	8	2

Certainty

            Certainty can be defined by the question: how likely is it that the act will bring about the anticipated pleasure?

            This is a big issue for the anti-gun control argument as although antidotal evidence is available and cited in favor of gun control the certainty that this will happen is not very strong, furthermore it is argued that even if guns were restricted the depravities would still occur through different mediums, thus making gun control somewhat pointless. On the same hand there is great certainty that recreational gunmanship for everyone gives pleasure every time and that the peace of mind knowing you are have the means to defend yourself is a certain thing.

            On the pro-gun control side argument the point is that you can still have guns, you just must “jump through some extra hoops”, and this with certainty will give us all a greater peace of mind as we know that many of those that would abuse guns are deterred by this process.

            All in all we can say that there is more certain pleasure in gun control than the certainty of displeasure. Let us make the ratio 3/7 for certainty against further gun control.

	Further Restrict Gun Control	No Further Gun Control
Intensity	7	3
Duration	8	2
Certainty	3	7

Propinquity

            Propinquity is a measure of how soon the pleasure can be enjoyed, the further away the pleasure the less power it has.

            As gun control is based largely on aversion of potential future unhappiness whereas those not wishing to have further gun control are enjoying their benefit now, I believe this category would be in favor of those not in favor of further gun control. They are currently enjoying their happiness while those in favor of gun control would gain only incremental happiness as gun control was eventually legislated and enforced. Let us make the ratio for this category 2/8 in against further gun control.

	Further Restrict Gun Control	No Further Gun Control
Intensity	7	3
Duration	8	2
Certainty	3	7
Propinquity	2	8

Fecundity

            Fecundity can be defined by the likelihood that the pleasures or pains that it causes will be followed by similar pleasures or pains. If the chain effects of the action will likely be good than this that is positive for fecundity, where if they are negative than it’s negative.

            If this was law was passed it could potentially lead to a less violent society, it could lead to further weapon restriction legislation possibly leading to the abolition of deadly weapons in society, thus reducing death, both intentional and accidental. It would make it easier to track gun crimes, and thus better deter such crimes, particularly passion crimes. It could lead to a more peaceful society with less mortal confrontations.

            Another possibility is that this would allow criminals and those with ill intent to better prey on the people causing for an increase in predatorily crimes such as robbery, rape, or murder.

            For the greater amount of people there would be more potential fecundity happiness if gun control was heightened. Let us make the ratio for fecundity 8/2 in favor of gun control.  

	Further Restrict Gun Control	No Further Gun Control
Intensity	7	3
Duration	8	2
Certainty	3	7
Propinquity	2	8
Fecundity	9	2

Purity

            Purity is a factor for the probability that the event will not be accompanied by unhappiness. An act that causes only pleasure is far better than one that causes some happiness mixed with pain. How pure is the emotion?

            The probability that gun control will bring you pure happiness is low; there will likely be those incidents and people that will suffer because of the choice. The same is true about the antithesis.

 I would postulate that the better happiness mix would exist in the pro-gun control emotions. Let us make the ratio 6/5 in favor of gun control.

	Further Restrict Gun Control	No Further Gun Control
Intensity	7	3
Duration	8	2
Certainty	3	7
Propinquity	2	8
Fecundity	9	2
Purity	6	5

Extent

            The question here is “how many people will it affect?” where in more is better.

            For pro-gun control this is a very good category as the choice to increase gun control is aimed to better society as a whole. If further gun control was enforced there would be very few people that it would immediately affect negatively and only a few in the future. Increasing gun control would affect everyone in society in a positive way immediately as it makes gun misuse less probable. Let us make the ratio 8/2 in favor of gun control.

Conclusion

	Further Restrict Gun Control	No Further Gun Control
Intensity	7	3
Duration	8	2
Certainty	3	7
Propinquity	2	8
Fecundity	9	2
Purity	6	5
Extent	8	2
TOTAL	43	27

          

           According to these thoughts about the gun control debate I believe the utilitarian morality would support a move towards further gun control.

            In conclusion I wish to share a personal story.  While I was living in Las Vegas I was in the house of a young man in his 20’s.  He told me that he had recently gone to a pawn shop that sold guns. He desired to buy a gun so the clerk give him some paperwork to fill out. When filing to buy a firearm in Nevada, it is required to ask if the person is a registered felon, if they are schizophrenic or suffer from mental conditions, if they have a violent history, and other such question. My friend instead of checking the ‘no’ boxes accidently checked all the ‘yes’ boxes.  They did not check his application and sold him the firearm on the spot.  Two weeks later they called him and asked him to return the gun. Although this is antidotal, it serves as an indication of how gun control legislation and mindset needs to be reformed in the United States.