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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scoobypax who wrote (1844)	10/9/2000 5:52:08 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 10042

Look, I'm not for taking your right to bear arms away, just for exercising some reasonable controls. It's like the DMV saying that you can only buy a car 5 hours after drinking, but you have a fleet of cars at your house. I'd say it's more like them asking you to wait 5 hours to drive (after drinking), no matter HOW many cars you have. No its not for two reasons. 1 - Even if you assume a waiting period will keep people who have no guns from getting one and killing someone before they have time to calm down, Cosmicforce's arguement is valid, the restrictions do nothing to prevent any one who all ready owns a gun from misuseing it in anger. 2 - Drunk driving directly puts other people in danger, no matter what the driver is like. It is and should be a crime because of the danger it directly poses to others. Just as a car an alcohol allow you to drunk drive, a gun and ammo for it help you to murder someone, but having a gun does not directly endanger other people's lives. A more accurate analogy would be a waiting period on cars or alcohol in order to try to prevent drunk driving. I submit that such a waiting period would be completly ineffective. Tim

To: scoobypax who wrote (1844)	10/9/2000 5:54:40 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10042

No, I'm a gun owner that DOES support gun control. I simply said that owning 1 gun defeats the intent of the waiting period. THAT is stupid if your are trying to curb rage killings because once you own 1 gun, the purchase of a second is irrelevant. Are you saying that additional 10 day waiting periods make everybody safer from rage killings by people who already own guns? Are you advocating laws that don't make sense only because they have the "right thing in their heart" but are otherwise illogical? It is like the DMV doing what I said. There are already laws that say you can't kill people, irrespective of how long you wait. This is about waiting periods for purchases of new equipment. The analogy stands, whether you like it or not.

To: scoobypax who wrote (1844)	10/9/2000 6:11:03 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Scoob, About the guns I own, I don't do much with them anymore. When I was in college getting my geophysics degree I was gone a lot so I bought my first handgun, a .357 for my wife for home defense and her personal peace of mind. I took her out to the range to show her how to use it several times before leaving her with it. I have kids, so they are ALL locked in a wall safe now and I'm not really rabid about their ownership. Two I inherited. I used to hunt, so I own a couple of rifles but I don't hunt anymore. I switched to recreational target practice for a few years when I stopped hunting for sport. I did this with my wife so we had his & her pistols. I'd probably sell most of them now. Keeping my grandfather's Remmington model 760 .30-06 and maybe the .357 and the .22 Ruger. My family has always had and used guns. It is more out of nostalgia and family connection that I even keep them at all. It is also a real pain in the butt (no pun intended, well, maybe a little) to sell them under the new laws that say I have to go through a liscensed arms dealer.