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.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chaz who wrote (61994)	10/15/2002 11:03:27 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77399

FIREARM FACTS Guns in the United States – Easy Access to Deadly Weapons There are approximately 192 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. – 65 million of which are handguns.i Currently, an estimated 39% of households have a gun, while 24% have a handgun.ii In 1998 alone, licensed firearms dealers sold an estimated 4.4 million guns, 1.7 million of which were handguns.iii Additionally, it is estimated that 1 to 3 million guns change hands in the secondary market each year, and many of these sales are not regulated.iv Gun Deaths and Injury – The United States Leads the World in Firearm Violence In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 12,102 (39%) of those were murdered; 17,424 (57%) were suicides; 866 (3%) were accidents; and in 316 (1%) the intent was unknown.v In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.vi For every firearm fatality in the United States, there are two non-fatal firearm injuries.vii In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 9,390 in the United States.viii In 1999, there were only 154 justifiable homicides by private citizens in the United States.ix Gun Violence — Young Lives Cut Short In 1998, more than 10 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns everyday.x In 1998, gunshot wounds were the second leading cause of injury death for men and women 10-24 years of age – second only to motor vehicle crashes.xi In 1998, firearm homicide was the leading cause of death for black males ages 15-34.xii From 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,409 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns each year.xiii Each year during 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,621 murderers who had not reached their 18th birthdays took someone's life with a gun.xiv Guns in the Home – A Greater Risk to Family and Friends For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.xv The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.xvi The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.xvii The Economic Costs of Gun Violence — All Americans Pay a High Price A study of all direct and indirect costs of gun violence including medical, lost wages, and security costs estimates that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year.xviii The average total cost of one gun crime can be as high as $1.79 million, including medical treatment and the prosecution and imprisonment of the shooter.xix At least 80 percent of the economic costs of treating firearm injuries are paid for by taxpayer dollars.xx,xxi bradycampaign.org

To: chaz who wrote (61994)	10/15/2002 11:27:00 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Respond to of 77399

for a start, we have a Constitution that, until amended otherwise, allows citizens to own them. well, it wouldn't be the first amendment, would it? the Constitution has been amended many times, and i can't think of a better amendment now than to outlaw guns. read that fact sheet i posted. I did not purchase a handgun until I was twice victimized in my home and learned there is no such thing as a "safe" neighborhood on the personal level, i have no rebuttal to your story. obviously you have the right to protect yourself as the law allows and you have done that. if the only people in this country who owned guns were responsible individuals like you with presumably no crime records who had been victimized in their homes twice, guns would probably not be much of a problem. unfortunately, if guns are legal, we can't just have them for a few people; they have to be available to EVERYBODY (regardless of whether they are "responsible"). thus while it may make sense for you, in your own personal life and your own judgment, to own a gun for self-protection, it does not make sense for the country as a whole. note those stats on guns in the home: For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.xv The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.xvi The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.xvii thus there is an enormous expansion of risks across society due to the legality of guns. while the gun kept in the closet of a given individual may pose no societal risks, 192 MILLION guns spread out across the entire country pose enormous risks, and the entire country pays the price. let me just say i am friends with a lot of gun owners (how could i not be living in Texas?), who seem to me to be "responsible" ownwers. but i draw a distinction between the moral validity a given individual may demonstrate or feel, and the macro effects of our disastrous gun policy. i have little doubt that if we were to outlaw guns (and i don't mean a few security checks--i mean amending the constitution so that nobody besides cops and the armed forces can own guns), i have little doubt that we would save many tens of thousands of lives in the years to come. with the consequences of guns now costing our economy $100BILLION a year, ridding our society of guns would increase the GDP alone by 1%. not to mention the millions of person-years lost to firearms prematurely. so i would simply say to you, i am not saying your particular justification is morally wrong or anything like that, but you might just consider that guns as a whole are a true evil in our country, and we would be better without them. of course, i say all this as my true opinion, though i think it is extremely unlikely that such beneficial changes will ever be enacted in this country. hopefully my pessimism is misplaced.

To: chaz who wrote (61994)	10/16/2002 1:04:41 AM
From: ehasfjord	Respond to of 77399

Amen Brother! Some people just don't seem to get it until someone hits them one the back of the head with a sock full of "bleep"! Take Care and good trading!

To: chaz who wrote (61994)	10/16/2002 8:43:42 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77399

chaz, RE: Well, for a start, we have a Constitution that, until amended otherwise, allows citizens to own them. I'm one of them, and might point out that my ownership in no way threatens you or anyone else. It is unclear whether the second amendment allows citizens to own arms or whether it allows well regulated militias to own arms.

To: chaz who wrote (61994)	10/16/2002 9:59:08 AM
From: Dennis Doubleday	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77399

OTOT: How do you feel on the subject of pre-sale ballistic testing and registry of weapons. It seems like a very common-sense thing to me. If we had such a registry, we would know which weapon was being used by the sniper--not necessarily who he is, but it would be a big jump start on finding him. I can't see why law-abiding gun owners would be opposed to such a thing. But Dubya and other politicians in the NRA's pocket are agin' it. BTW, I think a gun ban is impractical and would likely have th same effect on guns that Prohibition had on alcohol. But the Constitution certainly does not prohibit regulation and registration of weapons (it says "well-regulated" right in the amendment.)