> Atr the same time Texas was trying to keep more freedoms New York was > inacting more and more strict laws which, while reducing the crime rate, > aslo > affected the freedoms of the law abiding citizen. > Huh? When did New York become a "police state"?
> So if there is any > corolation, (which you have not shown) it would be that taking away peoples > freedoms reduces crime. But we knew that already. Look for stats on Rusian > crime during the harsh soviet years, or crime in Germany during the 3ed > Rich. > > You can "look for stats on Russian crime during the harsh Soviet years" but good luck finding any since the Soviets never published them. In fact, there was plenty of crime in the Soviet Union, but public knowledge of it was suppressed. This is a false dichotomy. Taking people's freedoms away does not lessen crime. The same as with the Ashcroft delusion that suppressing our rights will somehow translate into better national security (esp. as Ashcroft is doing things he wanted to do anyway and merely using 9-11 as a pretext and excuse). You can fight crime without repression - and without arming every man, woman and child in the country. New York City is an example (within limits). Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
