From: ice@socrates.umd.edu (Fredrik Nyman)
Subject: Re: Crime and punishment (was Re: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders)
Keywords: FFL, criminals getting FFLs, HCI agenda
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:20:57 GMT

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>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.
Indeed.  Compare, if you will, to the war on drugs.  So far, it has
virtually exclusively been fought with the goal of reducing supply,
while programs aimed at reducing demand (such as drug treatment and
detox programs) have had their funds cut.  The Brady Bill and possible
future restrictions making it harder to obtain a FFL are obviously 
intended to reduce the supply of guns.  You could, by the way, also
compare to the alcohol probition, which also intended to reduce
(actually completely stop) the supply of alcohol.

Exercise to the reader: interpolate the result of passing the Brady Bill
and restricting the availability of FFLs from the results of the alcohol
prohibition and the holy War on Drugs.

>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.
Which, to many criminals, is a step up.

>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.
You don't have to go quite this far to make a difference.
You could start by:
1. Don't give any additional support to people who have more kids
   while on welfare.
2. Don't give any support, much less own housing, to young women who
   *choose* to have kids even though they can't afford it.

>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.

>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
Is this necessary?  A *lot* of moral "codes", while present in
many (most?) religions aren't inherently religious, but rather plain,
old, and increasingly rare good sense.

When you teach someone not to kill, for example, you don't also have
to say "because God says so"; there are *quite* a few other reasons.

I wonder, though, if our schools are up to the task of teaching basic
human values like compassion and love for your fellow man.  After all,
our schools (and what they teach) tend to mirror our society in
general, and society's public figures, who so often are role models,
rarely exhibit these human values.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns