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: Kevin Rose who wrote (132997)	3/23/2001 1:34:09 AM
From: Lost in New York	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

In the case of the Colorado shooting there were many laws broken while obtaining the guns. In the first California shooting I thought I read that the killer got the gun from his father's mistakenly unlocked gun cabinet. Will more laws make much of a difference, I doubt it. It wouldn't have in these two cases. These shootings are terrible tragedies, but more laws aren't the solution.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (132997)	3/23/2001 11:19:45 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

YOUR FREEDOM TO RAISE A MILITIA DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE ABILITY TO ARM CHILDREN AND CRIMINALS THAT MAY END UP SHOOTING MY KIDS! And if your desire to add to the thousands of gun control laws in the US became reality the criminals would still be able to get guns. Why do you think gun prohibition would be any more successful then the old alcohol prohibition or the current drug prohibition? Tim

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (132997)	3/23/2001 12:50:13 PM
From: Srexley	Respond to of 769667

Another bit of nonsense imo: "The cold hard REALITY is that, without access to guns, MANY FEWER PEOPLE WOULD BE KILLED VIOLENTLY." I believe there are already over 200,000,000 guns in circulation in the U.S. Since you are proposing in your statement that there should not be "access" to guns I am wondering how you KNOW that there will be "MANY FEWER PEOPLE KILLED VIOLENTLY". Is this just a FEELING of yours, or do you have some FACTS to back that up? It seems to me that criminals would still find ways to get guns (again, there are 200 million plus out there already), but law abiding citizens would not be allowed to. This MAY actually make criminals bolder, don't you think? Scott

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (132997)	3/23/2001 1:10:49 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The cold hard REALITY is that, without access to guns, MANY FEWER PEOPLE WOULD BE KILLED VIOLENTLY. The cold hard REALITY is that, without access to automobiles, MANY FEWER PEOPLE WOULD BE KILLED VIOLENTLY. One general (I don't remember who) called them "the most dangerous weapon ever put into the hands of a civilian population." There is a price to be paid for everything. For cars, it's 50,000 deaths a year- -most than the totals from most American wars. There is a purpose in having cars, though. And there was a purpose behind that 2nd Amendment. It was the prevention of tyranny. Go read Jefferson's thoughts on the matter. He thought periodic revolutions would be necessary to prevent it. Things haven't been that bad. OTOH, if people insist on eleceting clowns like Slick, I think we'd better hang onto the guns.