From: MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:35:22 GMT
 <1992Jul24.024121.23964@magnus.acs.ohi
 <1992Jul24.144214.28183@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Jul24.144214.28183@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) says:
>
>In article <1992Jul24.044351.6180@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
>writes
>:
>>In article <1992Jul24.024121.23964@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>mzabel@magnus.ac
>s.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>>>>Then please explain why Canada has much lower crime rates than the US?
>>>>By your reasoning, all those bad US guns ought to be as available to
>>>>the Canadians as they are to the Mexicans.
>>>
>>>Possible Partial Explanations:
>>>
>>>1. Canada is not as impoverished as Mexico.  There is
>>...
>>>
>>>2. Canada has less people per square kilometer than
>>...
>>>
>>>3. Various cultural reasons exist.  For one, Canada did
>>...
>>
>>Are you saying that in the case of Canada, gun restrictions are not
>>primarily responsible for their low crime rate?
>>
>
>Was your question rhetorical, or was it real?  The key word
>is PRIMARILY.  The issue of controlling crime is much broader
>and relevant than the postings on this net would have you
>believe.
>
>The issue of gun control legislation is an attempt at a direct
>method of controlling crime, as is the issue of increasing
>the number of prison cells and police.  The other side of these
>issues usually involve personal freedoms questions.
>
>I am a firm believer that ultimately direct methods are completely
>ineffectual without the proper environment to make them work.
>For example, would giving someone who was at risk of becoming a
>career criminal hope that he/she could get a well paying job
>(and the training to get that job) prevent him/her from choosing
>a life of crime?  Would the occasional failure of such a program
>cost as much as the utilization of more direct methods?
>
>What do Bush and Clinton think about these questions?

I have been serving on a Federal Grand Jury for almost 2 years now and have
heard literally hundreds of cases.  The large majority of those cases
have involved people who were very educated, had very good jobs, and
were making incomes which most of us just dream of.  The notion that
if people only had access to a good education and good jobs they would
not become criminals is an example of a liberal-urban legend.  Violence
has been shown over and over to be a linked to cultural values, which
include mis-use (as opposed to use) of drugs, values passed down by
the family or general macro-culture, and the homogeneity or lack thereof
of the community.

The hypocrisy  of companies like TIME/WARNER which use their first
amendment rights to create an environment in which violence is seen
as a valid expression of frustration, or as a way to settle grievances
through their television, motion-picture, and "music" companies, while
they blame the resultant violence on "guns" is very indicative of the
lefts refusal to see their part in creating the conditions which have
led our "violent" society. The right wing is equally responsible with
the Saulian version of Christianity they are trying to impose on
this country replete with its guilt ridden anti-pleasure (sexual or
any other kind) dictum, but the left seems totally unwilling or
unable to perceive or even discuss the disasters they have inflicted
on this and other countries in the name of protecting people from
themselves.

Guns are not the problem, people have been killing each other very
handily since time began in the name of religion (another word for
cultural diversity) and nationalism without guns.  The problem now,
as then, is simply the lack of acceptance of individual responsibility
for ones actions and being led to accept the words of others as a
unquestioned authority.  Call it political correctness, religious
correctness, love of country, respect for "authority", or any thing
else which makes some subjects or concepts off limits for public
discourse and debate, the issue is one where people are taught to
believe that others know better what is best for them, and thus
never develop a sense of self which is not part of that group.  If a person
sees their "identity" as part of a group, and allows the group, or rather
the leaders of that group to do  the thinking for him/her, the next step
of seeing others who are not part of that group as less than "human" is
not all that hard to take.  "Ve were only following orders" is equally
as applicable to Nazi Germany, as it is to Los Angeles riots, the problem
comes from the apologists who refuse to deal with the reality of mob
rule, if the mob happens to be their mob.

Michael

Standard disclaimers, and I disclaim both the Right and the Left.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns