cliff@unmvax.UUCP (12/21/84)
> >a test that is just too risky to take. There are better ways to fight > >handgun deaths. The first of which is LEGALIZATION OF ALL VICTIMLESS CRIMES. > >This will allow two things of great import to happen. The police can go > >back to protecting the people from handgun killers, etc. and realize quite > >a bit more respect then they currently get. The price of many currently > >illegal substances will plummet, taking the money maker out of organized > >crimes and removing the incentive a junky has to steal 3 T.V.'s a day for > >his habit. In addition to all the reform that will be necessary to remove > >the victimless crime legislation, there should be a little work done on > >the judicial process. People curious about some of my views on that will > >have no problem prompting me into a little ranting and raving here and there. > > > > --Cliff [Matthews] > > This bit about getting rid of victimless crimes is so true and obvious > that it is no surprise people in power can't see it. It depends on which people in power you mean... There are many people in power who see just that and would not like to see the legalization of victimless crimes. Anyone that is making substantial money from illegal drug running, prostitution, whatever would not necessarily be able to do the same were the service not illegal. > But the connection > with handgun deaths is weird. In fact it was a weird feeling altogether, > to come across this gem of great worth at the end of a couple of hundred > lines of stuff with which I totally disagreed. > -- > > Martin Taylor > {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt > {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt I don't want to forget to congratulate and thank Martin Taylor for reading my article to completion. I have been guilty of reading the first 50 or so lines of an article and then pitching the rest when I have been swamped (which was fairly common when our feed was flakey, 'cause we would receive 2 weeks of netnews in one day....). Speaking of netnews crimes, I must admit that my conclusions did not have much supporting facts/analogies/crap. I was hoping that someone might prompt me into the composition of more elaborate prose. Congratulations and thanks. I see hand gun deaths closely tied to violent crime both directly (after all a handgun killing is usually a violent crime) and indirectly because many people own handguns because they are living in fear of violent crime. The U.S. citizen that has a handgun for protection and isn't interested in sport shooting would be less likely to have a hand gun if he did not perceive a need for one. I can understand someone living in a high crime area desiring a gun. The person who kills someone in a moment of passion would be less likely to have the gun if the owner of the gun (not necessarily the killer) had not perceived the need. Of course this doesn't apply to people who have guns for sport, but I tend to think that most serious gun users are more responsible than the scared Joe with a handgun in a drawer next to his bed. This line of thinking applies to all the "I didn't know it was loaded" and "I was cleaning it (for the first time in ten years...)" deaths and injuries. I now claim that the widespread {pro,per}secution of participants in victimless "crimes" significantly increases the amount of violent crimes occuring in the U.S. The United States government is third in the list of governments when listed by the number of people in prison (this may include jails; I couldn't find my reference) per capita (in descending order). Number one is the government of the Soviet Union; Number two is that of South Africa. The person that goes to jail for possession of an ounce of {your favorite illegal substance here} is not necessarily more aggressive than the general populace, but being kept in a cage for an extended period is not good for one's outlook on life. In addition, there are enough people that are jailed a second and a third time who are kept in the same facilities that any inmate is exposed to a decidedly more violent group of people. The consequences of overstuffed prisons are even more insidious than they seem. Statistically judges will give lighter sentances to criminals going to a jail that is overcrowded then they would to someone who committed the same crime but would go to a less crowded jail. This leaves more violent people on the street. The people that are incarcerated for victimless crimes wind up having been exposed to all sorts of mean and nasty concepts/people and then are set free. These people are now rejected by society because of their criminal record and they also know new ways to raise hell. Most of these people are going to be more violent than when the went in. Many will be back in jail eventually on stiffer charges. Several will have killed someone. A few will have done their killings with handguns. The few that used the handguns raised the death by handgun figure directly. The group that is more violent but didn't necessarily kill someone with a handgun has encouraged people without hand- guns to go out and purchase some. In additon, every victimless crime that is illegal introduces an incentive for or method of concealment of violent crimes. The murder of the prostitute that works "underground" will be harder to trace, because there will probably be no clients willing to testify (even in private) when the prostitute was last seen. The person who is addicted to heroin and doesn't trust the government enough to go into a "drug kicking program" will need quite a bit of money to support his habit. There are not too many ways to come up with the amount of money to support such a habit that do not involve dealing (which everyone can't do; it's like a chain letter or social security...not everyone can profit) or stealing. Theft leads to violent confrontations. Minimum wage laws (think about it, they are another example of a victimless crime) keep unemployment high and that creates tensions of its own... Anyone that commits victimless crimes (I do on a regular basis) has good reason to distrust or at least fear the police. Some people may let these feelings influence them to the point that they would prefer to arm themselves (not me--I have no arms; I type with my toes) then trust the police to protect them. Of course the police aren't too happy with the lack of respect and react in different ways, but even the cop with the most faith in humanity who really believes in his job will still be in less of a position to prevent violent crimes when he has to track down people who smoke dope, etc. In conclusion, I believe that many lives will be saved when the government stops trying to enforce morals. Quite a few deaths by handguns will be included in this figure. This legalization is more important to me than the repeal of the amendment XVI of the U.S. Constitution, showing that at least one Libertarian is not in it for the $$$. Hell, I am against patent and copyright laws (I don't think the Libertarian Party agrees with me), and as a programmer, you know that I will not benefit directly from their repeal. (Why is it that I have the feeling that that last sentance will cause more net traffic than the paragraphs that preceded it?...In fact, I bet there will be more people on this net that object to repeal of patent/copyright laws than would object to the repeal of welfare (I am also for the repeal of welfare BTW). --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143