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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (10986)	4/11/2001 5:36:00 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

. Your comparing all violent crimes against women against the percentage that have prevented violent crime through the use of a gun. My bad phrasing, I suppose - I meant, what proportion of gun-toting gals have had violent crimes 'successfully' committed against them, against those who have stopped such by use/brandishing/whatever of a gun. But I agree it would be very hard to study, and doubtless subjective. That's why I thought it was an odd argument for either side - something of a straw man, perhaps, again for either side...? When states passed [shall-issue] laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent. British %age must be around 99%.. exclude gang shootings, of which we have a few in certain inner-city areas, and you've got 100%, over 15 years. I can't recall ANY 'random' murders committed with guns since they were banned. That is NONE - mass killing or otherwise. And given the use of a gun in a homicide is now national news in the UK, I'd say that's a pointer, especially given the renowned tendency to violence of the young Brit... Remember, we have ~60M people crammed into around 1.6x the size of Arkansas, that's 20x more crowded. Makes for a lot more crime and a lot more aggravation with/from other people. I've lived 30-odd years in cities (I'm in a smaller town now, by UK standards anyhow). Barring a few soldiers (obviously), - I don't know anyone who's fired a gun at someone, ever. - I don't know anyone who's been shot. - I don't know anyone who's even been shot at. Can you say the same? Sure, you're not starting from where we are. Maybe you'd have to do it gradually. My argument is simple: the fewer guns in society, especially general circulation, the fewer people get shot by them. Automatic weapons, and nearly all handguns, are designed to kill other people. that's it. And I think they have no place in civilised, civilian life. BTW, I'm not (I think) an average pacifist gun-hater. I know what guns do and can do... Example: after little training, even I was able to 'kill' a man-size target at 600m 7/10 times, using an SLR on aimed single shot with 1.5 seconds per target flip (the SLR was the British Army standard-issue rifle, until the SA-80 came in last decade). That's why I'd rather know that no one in a crowd near me is carrying something designed to kill me.