Thanks for the offer. I do, however, have some concern as to whether this is the appropriate forum, but since Lori Sensei has not booted us yet, what the heck.
I am deeply troubled by your most recent post. Not for the issues you raise, but how you raised them. Answering a question with a question. You act like you have either been hanging out with attorneys or politicians. Please, be careful.
I owe Mr. Castanet an appology. He said that crime had dropped 50%, and since I had beed discussing violence, I made an assumption he saw a correlation. That may, or may not, be the case. But, in any event, whether one is discussing crime or violence, to say there is 50% decrease is to imply there remains some level of crime or violence. Now perhaps one can isolate oneself from crime or violence when it drops below a certain level. Clearly the rise in home security firms, gated communities, and electronic security leads people to believe they can isolate themselves from crime and violence. My question was rather direct...even with a 50% reduction, is there not someone being victimized by crime or violence.
To be even more direct, who pays for all this reduction. Who pays for the prisons and the correctional officers? Who pays for the children whose parents are locked away? Who pays for the lose of the convicted from the workforce? Who pays when the criminal is released? Who pays...?
Get tough. We have more people in prison today than any other nation in the world. Yet, violent death is fast approaching as the number one killer of all our young men, of any race or ethicity. And while you decry the solution is to arm ourselves, the truth is we are armed. We are armed, we are violent, and we must change if we are to endure as a civilized people.
"Hand guns are made for killin', they ain't good for nothing else."
Robb in Sacramento