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: Srexley who wrote (134994)	4/3/2001 12:27:56 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

OK, I think I'm seeing your point. Is the second purpose of guns the DETERRANT of their use? Sort of the equivalent to our rationalization of having nukes? I can see that. But, an increase in the supply of guns also increases the risk that they are not used for their intended purpose. Let's say the bad guys get X guns to commit crimes, and good citizens acquire Y guns to deter them. But, there is Z chance that the Y guns will be used incorrectly, not for their intended purpose. Accidentally, or by the bad guys. I suppose we could attempt to figure out a formula, but that would require too much guessing. So, we try to reduce the possibility of Z, without affecting X or Y (you can't effectively reduce X without also reducing Y; in fact, gun advocates postulate that any law aimed at 'gun control' will reduce the ratio X/Y). So, that would logically presume that we want to reduce the possibility Z; accidental or misuse. Some proposals that I know about are: 1) trigger guards that work (apparently, 2/3s of the ones out there today don't), 2) better training (mandatory classes?), 3) registration (to ensure 1 & 2). Am I correctly stating what I will call the 'pro-gun' position?