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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (134111)	3/6/2001 12:08:52 AM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573573

Ted re <<There is good evidence that strong gun laws work and reduce the murder rate in a society.>> That is debatable. California has the strictest gun control laws in the nation and is among the worse in the violent crime category. Also Australia banned all guns in the early 90's, since then violent crime, and more importantly murders using guns has steadily increased. Re << we are a society that has become heavily urbanized with both paid police forces>> I don't know about you but I have very little faith in police. In a study done by FBI in 1995, overwhelming majority of criminal who broke into people houses cited "armed resident" as the number one deterrent. Clearly we are doing a whole lot of things wrong when we have school shooting such as today few miles from here, or when the richest country in the world has such high violent crime rate. But blaming the NRA or guns is nothing but a picking a scapegoat. No one has all the answer but requiring more discipline in schools as you suggested, or restricting violent rap lyrics as John suggested, is a good start. Mani

To: tejek who wrote (134111)	3/6/2001 10:14:19 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573573

I apology to all those who belong to the NRA for using that word. Apology accepted. I understand how in a heated moment its easy to demonize those you disagree with. However, until such time as we can come up with a system that effectively keeps guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed or the would be criminal or our kids, I am opposed to any laws that permit so many guns in our society. Apology accepted. I understand how in a heated moment its easy to demonize those you disagree with. However, until such time as we can come up with a system that effectively keeps guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed or the would be criminal or our kids, I am opposed to any laws that permit so many guns in our society. I can think of only two ways that gun control could work to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed and criminals. One would be if it was backed up by an efficient and sometime brutal police state. The other would be if the mentally disturbed and criminals no longer wanted guns. And as for our Constitution, I believe the right to bear arms was intended for a society that was primarily agricultural and isolated and undefended....and even then, guns were only meant to protect oneself from wild animals or Indian attacks, to hunt, or to defend this country. Guns weren't meant to defend yourself against attacks by other people besides Indians? If you think that part of the constitution is now more of a liability then a benefit then the appropriate response is to seek an amendment not to have that part of the constitution ignored. Tim