So to satisfy Harry about the US having more violent crime that the UK and/or Switzerland, I propose that we in the US pass a new law to share our violent criminals with them. Instead of putting them in prison and confiscating their weapons, we'll ship them both (weapon & criminal) randomly to either the UK or Switzerland. Our statiscics should soon even out or hopefully thay will do so eventually.
For the "too lax gun laws" - stuff & nonsense.
We only have too lax enforcing (in the courts) of existing laws. Many "bleeding hearts" are against the death penalty. They say it costs more than life imprisonment. This is only due to the courts being too lenient with appeals. And the death penalty is a deterant - putting a criminal to death will indead deter him (or her) from commiting another such act (at least in this life time). Perhaps if we chose one of the bleeding hearts at random, gave them & the convicted criminal a knife and put them in a dark room and turned loose the survivor (if there was one) we could eventually either have fewer criminals or fewer bleeding hearts so we could better punish the criminals.
Some years ago I read a letter to the editor of the NRA magazine from a deputy sheriff in west Texas. He said that his county had the highest per capita number of guns in the nation and the last muder in his county was when "one man beat another man to death with a rock". Perhaps their "rock control laws" were too lax.
And finally the post about breaking the nation up into more smaller nations - we tried that once and after a good butt whupping were made to rejoin the larger nation.
Getting back to the original "Dr. Drib" question, I wonder "should we reduce the population since there are now fewer jobs or increase the population to provide more consumers, thus requiring more manufactured goods which would provide more jobs?
