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 (238949)	3/17/2002 2:37:05 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Your un-researched speculation about defensive gun use is just that. It's a fact that the biased media reports all violent uses of guns, but almost never reports defensive situations where guns prevented crime. No wonder you can't believe true facts that are presented to you, because you have been so propagandized that the truth is difficult to believe. In January, when a western Virginia law student shot three people on campus, he was subdued by fellow students who had firearms and disarmed him. The fact that they were armed was not reported in the mainstream press, because it would have undermine their political agenda. Crimes of opportunity frequently are perpetrated by unarmed assailants who believe they have superior strength and advantage -- until confronted with greater firepower, which turns them away rather quickly. Don't blame "the NRA" -- "the NRA" is a grass-roots organization made up of law-abiding people who enjoy gun ownership for a variety of long-standing, legitimate reasons, and who believe just as strongly in their 2nd Amendment gun ownership rights as NOW members believe in abortion rights, or the press or any individual believes in their 1st Amendment rights. <edit> Btw, despite all the covers and locks, many deaths occur in swimming pools each year -- probably most are accidents, but some might be intentional drownings or suicides. Regardless of intent, the danger presented and the loss of life caused by swimming pool ownership are unacceptable, and far outweigh any potential benefit that a few elite people might gain from having their own private, un-guarded, unlicensed swimming pools. Therefore, all private swimming pool ownership should be banned. Only governments should have swimming pools, where they can be properly licensed, regulated, and guarded. <g>

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (238949)	3/17/2002 3:44:47 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Respond to of 769670

I have a pool. It is covered with a lock. I believe they should all be covered or locked behind sufficient fences. But not banned. What did the pollster in your consider a defensive use of a gun? Waving it around? I doubt that this number is even close to reality, because of the low ratio of 'incidents' to actual shootings. I simply cannot believe that 99.99% of these 'incidents' result in the perpetrator simply running away. With the proliferation of guns, a good number of these assailants are similarly armed. I wonder how many of these incidents were really someone stopping a potential crime. How many of them were some bozo branishing his weapon during a road rage incident? How many were at the end of a long night at the bar drinking, becoming obnoxious, and branishing at 'would be assailants'? You distrust and mock the study but you have no proof or study that refutes it, only the common wisdom fed to you by the Gun Control Lobby. The studies are real and done by academics at large Universities. They have been peer reviewed. If you have read neither the study or the review you are essentially commenting without knowledge. Gun owners are very protectional of their firearms. I'm sure there are another high percentage of answers that were simply fantasy. Pollster: "Have you used your weapon to stop a crime?" Bubba: "Sure, dang, happens all the time. Put me down for 12 incidents". The 'service provided' by firearms pertains mainly to criminal actions. It's a lot easier to hold up a liquor store with a gun than a knife. Again you mock gun owners as "bubbas", bigotry as surely as the n word. If you read the study if did not count multiple incidents by individuals. It's a lot easier to rob ANYONE and ANYTHING when they are UNARMED. And it's a lot harder to be a cop if you never know when a perp is armed. A couple of months ago, 1 mile from my house, a San Jose Police officer was shot to death as he approached a car he had stopped. What's the point here? You could be implying that it does no good for a cop to be armed, a criminal can kill without warning. Is that it? My nephew is a cop and he carries off duty. Think he cares about self-defense? He does, just as much as he cares about the law. I believe in a perfect world, law enforcement is the only one to have hand guns. Thanks to the NRA, we are continually pushed in the opposite direction. "Studies" like this one, self serving and likely funded by the NRA, are simply more disinformation used to prop up their morally indefensible argument. Sorry, we don't live in a perfect world, otherwise I could agree. Studies were not funded by NRA, unless you have evidence that proves otherwise. What studies are you putting forth that deny the efficacy of handguns for self-defense? The debunked ones are many. The vast majority of homicides with firearms are crime related, specifically drugs and happen when criminals kill each other. The gun lobbies that fight for access to assault weapons, who fight against mandatory gun locks, who fight for access to armor piercing ammo, are using fear and lies to further their cause. The one stand-up act performed by former president Bush was his resignation from the NRA for mailings he found disturbing and "beyond the mainstream by any definition." Nearly every Swiss male has a real "assault weapon" in his possession. A select fire automatic weapon. No problems. Only one death in the US has been recorded involving a real "fully automatic, select fire assault weapon. A policeman shot his girlfriend. Assault weapon is a term to describe the look of a weapon. It's function is duplicated in many rifles that do not carry the tag. It is still legal to hunt with an so-called assault rifle. They are used in national civilian marksmanship contests that include young men and women as well as adults and military. Nearly any rifle ammo is capable of piercing body armor. It is not special, it's just regular hunting ammo. Handgun ammo will not pierce body armor of a certain level. Further protection can be had by a ceramic plate. I know this from my nephew, a sheriff, not any study or NRA propaganda. Bush 41 thought his siding with gun control of law abiding citizens was politically beneficial at the time. Bush 43 was well served by the NRA in the election. Laws that punish criminal USE or POSSESSION of firearms are fine. Laws that restrict the law-abiding citizen are arguably un-Constitutional (US v. Emerson) and have NO effect on criminal possession. The only law that can deny "legal" sales to criminals, the Brady Law, is virtually unprosecuted. It can be argued that it has stopped "legal" sales but simply ends up directing them to the shorter line of "illegal" sales. They are criminals for simply "trying" to purchase legally. Justice reports 186,000 sales stopped by Brady. BATF claims only 44,000. Clinton used a figure at the time of 60,000. Media took no notice. Violation of Brady is a 5 year felony, yet BATF reports only 7 prosecutions, with 4 convictions. Are they serious? Brady, despite the claims must rank as the "least" effective law on the books, in practice, despite it's possibilities.