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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (40461)	9/28/2000 7:24:16 PM
From: microhoogle!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Homicide down 9%. That's a bad figure eh? Yes genocide occurs when it is one sided. All this argument serves to do is a lot of proliferation of weapons and handguns. Using that logic, I believe other countries should have nuclear power to counter US, or France, or China and prevent potential genocides. This thing can go on and on. Why would anyone need to buy unlimited guns? I even fail to understand why anyone would need to buy 1 gun a month. For protection I would assume that a single gun should suffice. Are they expecting an army to knock at the door tonight? Homicides will happen -- guns or no guns. The answer is, SEVERE penalties to perpetrator of crime -- a punishment strong enough to deter any other individual to commit similiar crimes. Right now the jailhouses for some criminals seems to be honeymoon place. BTW: Gordon, any idea why people get annoyed when I present case against guns? I may have indulged in fun with other issues, but in this case, I am really trying to question if guns are required at all in a society. The only points I can see in favour is self defence in case of a crime. But, I say promote a situation where the crime is minimized. Another in favor of guns is what the forefathers suggested in form of 2nd Ammendment. Again I question this in the form that how long does it really take to raise a militia if the government turns tyrannical? It does not even take long to manufacture weapons. If it really turns tyrannical, there is no way present militia can deal more effectively than the ad hoc militia that will be formed when required. Why does an individual need a cache of arms, when a single, maybe 2 or even 10 are enough? Call me old fashioned, but I still think pen is mightier than sword. (A new fashioned guy may that keyboard is mightier than AK-47 <g>)