From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Crime and punishment (was Re: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 19:13:21 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
Keywords: FFL, criminals getting FFLs, HCI agenda
Distribution: na

jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy Howard) writes:

>make it slightly more legit.  The problem is, the more you legislate it, the
>easier it is to just take it all away.  I have a hard time deciding on these
>issues, because it is clear that people abuse the existing laws, and I can't
>see how to correct that without burdening all the honest folks out there
>unnecessarily.

what you have to do in a case like this is ask (or remind) yourself
what the problem is we're trying to fix.  The problem is NOT that
some people who probably shouldn't are getting FFLs.  The problem is
that too many people look to the gun as a tool to solve problems.
"Problems" being anything from rival gang members to that guy
in the convenience store between the perp and the cash register.

The question is "How do we stop or discourage people from using deadly
force inappropriately?"  People respond first to training and secondly
to the fear of force.  Law abiding citizens are that because they've
been trained to be.  There's nothing in our genes that makes the baby
pop out ready and willing to live in society.  That's why God made 
parents.  Parents are not doing the job in many cases, if they are 
present at all.  

After training fails, fear of the consequences 
takes over.  Why do I not drive at the speed I want to all the time?
Not because I respect the traffic law; I don't.  Because I'm afraid 
the state will use the force of arms to take my wealth and in this 
time of lawless pigs, maybe my life as a consequence of my speeding.
If I became so mad at someone that my desire to kill him overrode 
my parent's training, why would I still not do it?  Because *I*
still fear what the law can do to me.  Plain and simple.

Problem is the legal system offers little for those who have nothing 
to lose to fear.  Jail?  Hah!  A short vacation with 3 squares and
a warm bunk.  An opportunity to train in the craft (of crime).  An
opportunity to make new contacts.  In other words, the criminal version
of the business networking system.  Fear of the death  penalty?
Hah!  It gets used so rarely and to become practically only a theoretical
risk to the killer.  The only thing the criminal has to fear is the 
occasional armed victim and the remote chance of being caught in
the act and shot by police.

Seems to me there are a number of obvious solutions that won't get done
because they fly in the face of those making money off the current 
system and/or the bleeding heart leftists would fight it.

On the family front, the government could do everything in its power
to discourage single parent families.  No assistance to single pregnants,
tax single parents, tax the non-resident parent when known, offer
whatever aid is needed to survive to nuclear parents, taking 
children out of disfunctional homes and putting them in good foster
or adoptive homes and so on.  While making parents "stay together for
the sake of the kids" may offend some who think they should not have 
to do anything they don't want to do, IMHO, keeping the kids from
becoming future crime waves is more important than inconvenienceing 
parents. They signed up for the job when they caused the child to be 
born.

On the educational front, do whatever is necessary to work around the
Supreme court ban on religion in school (constitutional amendment,
abolish public schools in favor of tax credits, etc) and again
teach children the basic moral code that underwrites every major
religion.  If multiple classes, each on a major religion have to be
taught, so be it.  To the agnostics and atheists who will object,
I suggest that there are very few if any children who have a mature
enough worldview to make a decision accepting or rejecting religion.
They may choose to reject their religious training as an adult but
if they do, they are likely to retain the moral code and the concept
of there being a right and a wrong.  Note that I am NOT advocating the
denominational dogmatic repressive approach commonly now practiced
by church schools.  I'm advocating religion being taught the same way it 
was taught to me in school before the supremes stuck their noses in and 
made a mess.

As the ultimate deterrent/preventative, put the really bad people away
in a manner that will scare them into not returning.  Yep, let's warehouse
'em.  Not in a motel room with bars but in cells no larger than that
required for a bunk and a crapper.  They'd only be there at night 
because their days would be filled with hard physical labor.
There is more than enough public works to be done to keep this scum
busy.  Would the prisoner be mad?  Sure.  Would he be resentful?
Sure.  Would he hate society?  sure.  Would he want to get even?
Sure.  Would he be afraid to try it for fear of returning.  Absolutely,
if we do the prison right.  The criminally crazies stay in prison 
for life, of course.

First offence for crimes with the potential for the use of
violence should  bring a term just long enough to show them what
it will be like the  next time.  Second offence, stick the perp
in for half his estimated  remaining life.  First offenders in
violent crimes get the same treatment.  Second offenders of
violent crimes and those who cause permanent physical injury or
death get the chair or gas chamber.  What can't be deterred is
eliminated. 

Of course we could just pass the Brady Bill and believe everything will
be fixed.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns