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: Dayuhan who wrote (53692)	8/31/1999 7:35:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 108807

>By taking the all-or-nothing stance, gun owners put the non gun-owners in the position of making those plans, which is why they are usually founded on ignorance and ineffective.< My core question is - what intermediate point would work as a public policy calibration (pun intended) mark? Where would an effective guarantee toward gun owners best overlap what the gun-fearers want? And how to achieve that without looking like Chamberlain? How much gun control is Enough? The lesson coming out of Europe, Asia and Australia is "there is never enough; we will not stop pushing back against the gun owners". I am frankly curious how to balance a visible acceptance of compromise with my interest in keeping, yea restoring, my gun privileges. The NRA's "extremist" stance might put you and others off, but so far they are proving dead-on correct. I'll need to see evidence that their extreme views aren't correct before I'll abandon the NRA. Indeed imo the depiction of the NRA as distastefully extreme is a particularly successful bit of propaganda. Tell me it ain't so. > The phenomenon of the drive-by shooting, the spree shooting, the use of large-capacity weapons on randomly selected targets, is relatively new. Inevitably it is going to provoke a public response. The thought scares people, and quite naturally so.< No it's not. All these things happened in a lively way during Prohibition. But for some reason it's being presented as a New Threat. Saturation newscasting is what's new, and it is being used with telling effect. The thought is intended to scare people, and the equivocation going on centers on the tacit equation of guns with crime. Of gun ownership with gun crime. This is deliberate dishonesty, and somebody's GETTING AWAY with it. Thus my invocation to question the motives of the gun grabbers.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (53692)	8/31/1999 9:54:00 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The problem is there is no right to carry anymore even though it was a right when this country was founded. Any looney can get a gun. That will not change with stricter laws. But how far into a shooting rampage or a robbery will a looney get if many of the people around him are also armed. How many people in that restaurant in Killeen Texas would have been shot if a few of those folks were armed also. Very few is the answer, and that looney would have been dead real quick.