Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (13989)	12/3/1997 3:37:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>>This, while it sounds very reasonable, is where I start to disagree. Since most guns involved in crimes are stolen from law-abiding owners, and we have five times the percentage of our population in jail as other civilized societies already, at huge cost to this society, it does not seem reasonable to me that further incarceration is really workable. I have no real problem with people like you having guns, as long as they are not stolen from you, because you weigh the responsibilities of gun ownership carefully, and have discussed how you will keep yours away from your soon-to-be-delivered child. I do think the third group is much more of a threat to society, but how do we divide people like you from that group? What would the criteria be? << This is pretty close to the core of the matter, I think. I reaaly strongly feel that crime should be treated as crime. "Potential crime" is too much of a morass, a temptation to write laws based on shadows, for me to ever get comfy with. Five times the percentage... this means to me that there are a LOT of people bing convicted and jailed for crimes. Assuming for a moment that none are political prisoners (an argument could be floated here about folks jailed for simple drug possession) this sughgests that there is a LOT of crime going on! Now in my opinion there is only one way to reduce the amount of crime: make it very expensive. For now, this means MORE jails, more properly run. I submit that the "correctional" philosophy which has pervaded our jail system for decades now has done immense harm. On the one hand, the punitive mission of jail has been rejected (as a matter of social policy - I mean - we're more civilized now, right?) in favor of a less defined rehabilitative mission. Now again, my opinion, but this is a big problem. Operating from the idea that all convicts are amenable to restoration is placing a lot of trust in the goodwill of our worst subset of society. Hrmph. The unmentioned side effect of this moral abdication is that jailhouse power has migrated into the hands of the major prison societies (Aryan Nation or [some misappropriation of] Islam, along strict color lines). Result: an efficient, brutal induction into the most violent academies of higher mayhem in the land. What a way to train a criminal mercenary force. We really blew that one. So, if the big problem is that criminals are stealing guns to commit crimes, we as a society need to summon the moral courage to face this - as a crime issue. We need to punish the violent crimes "with extreme prejudice" once all available due process has been observed in court. Let's treat convicts as such!!!! Secondly, we need to make "crime with a habdgun" or knife or crowbar - any deadly weapon - a really serious offense. Add the felony of possession of a stolen deadly weapon. Our problem reduces to a policy issue surrounding crime&punishment. I respectfully submit that trying to bandage this social hemmorrhage by restricting firearms access to everybody is deliberately using the gun issue as a scapegoat for the bigger issue: violent crime. I'd sure like to see the Violence Policy Institute address the issue of "revolving-door" justice forced upon us bu a groaning-full jail system. Send the simple and refreshing message that conviction for a violent crime means a long spell in jail, each time, every time, will have a bracing effect on our more crime-prone fellow citizens. I guarantee it. >Of course, these guns are LEGAL weapons< The moment they are in the hands of minors, Nuh-uh. Not legal any more. I suspect we're touching on a different moral crisis here: the loss of proper ethical teachers and role models esp. for latchkey kids. This is a really thorny issue. I don't have any answers. But a coupla generations back, if a youngster committed an improper act with a weapon or other dangerous device, the consequences would be grave. I think the cornerstone of advancing a sense of community, even before the indispensable access to teachers, is the establisment of the idea that Breaking the Rules will not be Tolerated. My feeling at this time is that tightening controls on society as a whole might bring small incrmental gains in our individual security (Ban all non-police guns. Censor television. Come down hard on "subversive" culture.) I feel that the loss in opportunity, in diversity, in the ability of each individual to explore the road to value in our society - is a price too high. So, going well beyond guns at this point, I state as an article of belief that if we have a problem in our society with violence and general departure from simple ethics, we need to enforce these ethics (specifically, the laws which codify these ethics) first and foremost. Only then will we have a stable foundation on which to build positives: education, public discourse, economics&technology, the arts. It seems to me that America is like a beautiful finely-crafted house whose basement is collapsing. We need to address the "basics" first thing. And I say the first step is to join up and move against the predators among us. Then we'll be able to talk about guns as guns, not as proxies in an anxious debate on social ills.

To: Grainne who wrote (13989)	12/3/1997 9:04:00 PM
From: James R. Barrett	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The History of Guns. Q. Who invented the gun? A. The first "gun" was invented one to two million years ago in Java. It was made from a human arm and a handy rock. It was more likely discovered accidently rather than invented. The caveman quickly realized he had discovered something of tremendous importance. He could now injure or maybe kill his enemies without having to touch them. Q. Why was that important? A. Good question. Hand to hand combat was very dangerous for both participants. Remember, they were fighting to the death.....not until somebody got knocked out. There was a lot of biting and kicking and choking and both sides usually got badly injured. The strongest man usually killed the weaker man but at a high price to his own body. The arm and rock gun eliminated that problem. Modern weapons of today are no different. The idea is still the same. To kill your enemy without touching him or him touching you. Jim

To: Grainne who wrote (13989)	12/4/1997 9:15:00 PM
From: Skipper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, "It's not the fifties anymore, the mothers have mostly gone back to work, and children are being reared in absentia, and as a group seem to be much more lost than before. There is so much repetitive, numbing violence on tv and in movies that many of these children have no real respect for the sanctity of life, or even that death is real, or final." Now you're making sense! Turn off the goddamn TV, and start paying attention to the kids. Two rational steps. Skipper