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 : Do handguns serve a purpose other than killing people? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GForsyth who wrote (139)	9/22/1999 11:21:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 289

>They are meant for transportation and the fact that that many people are killed by cars every year suggests that people shouldn't be supplied with a weapon designed for that purpose.< Imo there is a logical disconnect here. Cars are not intended to kill or injure. And yet they claim many lives. Even so there are comparatively few people in the USA or elsewhere who consider the injury risk of privately-operated motor vehicles to be unacceptable. It has already been shown here that the use of handguns is not exclusively to kill other people. If you arer dissatisfied with the details of that demonstration, please speak up. But the disconnect I see is this: Even though guns claim less lives than cars, you are impressed by the idea that guns are designed to injure, and you believe this to be immoral. How'm I doing? Handguns are designed to shoot. Shooting can include target work, hunting, very inefficient gardening <gg> or stopping attackers. Imo the intended use of concealed, carried defense handguns - to threaten or deliver unto an attacker grave bodily harm - is not evil. More important, there is no practical replacement. The nonlethal, concealable device that will stop a fight - right here, right now - has not been invented. The core of the anti-handgun argument is political/philosophical. You have witnessed on this thread the pro-gunners deconstruct the antiugun arguments - with a high degree of effectiveness but with wildly varying degrees of courtesy. To "buy" the antigun argument, you must declare a faith in the following ideas: 1) The risk of incidental injury by a gun outweighs its benefits as a personal defense. 2) The government has a greater intrinsic right than the citizen to go armed and use those arms. 3) Banning handguns without any further structural change to thisd country's judicial and penal machinery will make the difference in overall violence. and 4) The right to keep, bear, own and bequeath the personal property represented in civilly-owned guns is worth rescinding i favor of an unproven Gov't guarantee of personal safety, security and redress. I personally vote Nay across the board. I claim the right to defend my person and my family - my property even - by the threat or reality of lethal force. Nothing less guarantees my liberties. I am dismayed at how few people would vote Yea if they THOUGHT about it - and yet how many fail to figure out what "reasonable, sane gun control proposals" are all about - a frank accumulation of power into the hands of the folks who brought us Ruby Ridge, Waco and Rodney King, acts 1 and 2. Now if you are concerned about criminal violence and not the outright existence of civil firearms - that is a whole nother kettle of fish, and we can chew on that one separately.

To: GForsyth who wrote (139)	9/22/1999 11:30:00 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Respond to of 289

GForsyth I hope your friend survived and is doing well. You are obviously invested in this subject in an emotional way. It is no wonder it seems senseless to you, this incident was. However, regardless of the stridency of the supporters of the 2nd Amendment here,(I am named after 2 uncles in WWII I never met who died to preserve our rights) you can appreciate those who have lost loved ones to gun violence or war and feel adamantly in their right to protect themselves and their family. Emotion, n. A prostrating disease caused by a determination of the heart to the head. It is sometimes accompanied by a copious discharge of hydrated chloride of sodium from the eyes. IOW you will get over this feeling someday and be able to look at the problem rationally and see some things you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge right now. Regards Gordon

To: GForsyth who wrote (139)	9/22/1999 11:37:00 PM
From: JeffA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 289

So GForsyth returns..... Hmmmm...... You were not threatened to be killed, I have read this entire thread today. I said I was going to "rip into you" that is a far cry from rip you to pieces, it is a metaphor to tearing your argument to shreds. My kids know of my guns, have seen me clean and shoot them and my 6 yr old has shot my .22 rifle. He will grow up in boyscouts and have a rifle of his own. It will be locked but when it is not He will know how to repsect the weapon and it's power. I really regret you saw a friend killed in a random act of violence of which you were not even participants. I am sorry for your loss. No one should ever have to experience that. As far as not respecting the US gov't well I disagree there. I do not trust or respect The majority in the executive branch. The other branches are trying their best at what they do..... To some extent. I wish you well, but I still think the title is purposely inflammatory and there is an agenda here.....

To: GForsyth who wrote (139)	9/23/1999 8:56:00 AM
From: Pakrat	Respond to of 289

Dear Mr. Forsyth, You and I carry a similar story. Yours was an unintential death, mine was intentional. Was working in New York with gang kids, we had gotten involved with this one gang, and the leader took a likeing to us. We were able to get him out of drugs, sober, and within a year he was telling other gang kids about being out of the gangs. Of course as all good things come to an end, We had just finnished doing a school assembly when from an upstairs apartment window came the snipers bullet. It missed my head barely and hit him in the upper side of the head. Its been 3-4 years since that happened. And I still wake up with nightmares from it. Regardless as much as I hate the fact that that kid is dead, The gun didn't kill him It was a person from his own gang, mad that he had "given up on them." The main point here is that I feel it all comes back to our children. We need to teach responsiblity to them in all manner of life, not just gun control. The type of kids that roam the New York streets, Are involved with gangs and have no sense or value for human life are the ones that come from broken, fatherless homes that have not been taught right from wrong. If you take a kitten that has just been born, and put it in a feild, it will grow to be wild. Many of these kids are the same way. The breakdown of the American family is more the problem than the handguns, assult rifles, and violence. I wish congress had the brains to stop blaming the guns and start looking to where the real problems are, and do more to help. Oh God, how I wish it!

To: GForsyth who wrote (139)	9/23/1999 10:32:00 AM
From: j__z	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 289

Well GForsyth, Sorry about your friends, but you have got understand about verbal personal attacks on these bbs...most people would not say these things to your face, however I would have no problem with standing up in a room full of HCI members and expressing my disapproval of their opinions. The reason you are getting so much "flak" from the pro-gun side is not because we love gun so much, its because we view it as a matter of liberty, freedom, & personal choice. Or at least, I view it that way. As far as your comment about "anti-gun control responders seem to be rather overpowering" I don't apologize for those who came here to fight. You threw the gauntlet down, we're just here fighting through it. One last comment "If you really want to have a true moderated discussion, try opening up to some alternate viewpoints" The problem is I have seen very few pro-control argument on this thread that hold any water or that I don’t have a argument against. Most pro-control arguments are not very well thought out, they are just regurgitated sound bites from anti-gun politicians.