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: TimF who wrote (142171)	1/28/2002 12:36:48 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578978

The whole analogy assumes that much greater level of control of guns is both possible in America, and desireable, apparently because it assumes that the guns themselves are bad in a way similar to how cancer is bad. We try to cure cancer because it is bad and any reduction of it is good. Your post is an excellent case for gun control, if you assume gun control to mean legislated/earned_right to carry a weapon....and not the NRA definition, which plays on emotions and scare tactics. Gun control does not have to mean a reduction of legally owned/carried guns...it is desirable to control who is legally allowed to buy and carry them. Al

To: TimF who wrote (142171)	1/28/2002 3:03:38 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578978

If the analogy is between controling guns and cureing cancer then guns are the cancer in the analogy. No.........the analogy is not between the two subjects but between the two predicates. And the two predicates relate directly to the two subjects. The whole analogy assumes that much greater level of control of guns is both possible in America, and desireable, apparently because it assumes that the guns themselves are bad in a way similar to how cancer is bad. One last time and then I give up.........my original analogy was that I believe its as difficult to cure cancer as it is to control the proliferation guns [you had felt that it would pretty difficult to control the proliferation of guns in the US], nonetheless we do not give on the goal to find a cure for cancer so why should we give up on the goal to control guns? If you still don't understand the analogy, we'll have to give up on this issue. ted

To: TimF who wrote (142171)	1/28/2002 3:17:05 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578978

Do you have statistics do back up these statements? I don't have any stats to back up "many people still carry guns on a regular basis, but I know it to be true in many areas of the country. As for more violent crime in areas with more gun control. You might want to read the book refrenced in this link. Interesting tactic.........you don't have the statistics to back up the significant statement you made in your post re gun usage but then you turn around and overwhelm me with enough gun control related links to keep me busy for a week. Frankly, I don't have a week to devote to the study of this issue. Besides, I can see in a quick review flaws in the data already. I think that its very clear that our ideologies allow for no agreement and I find it senseless to continue to discuss this issue. ted