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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (15764)	10/20/2002 6:12:27 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Well, that sounds like evidence that public gun ownership isn't a problem. Simple conclusion. Classic conservative thinking. You may not know it but there is more to "gun ownership" than having a gun and bullets. which isn't a threat to them and in fact shelters them under its defence umbrella. It's more accurate to note that Canada has been a defense umbrella for the US. The forward radar sites for detecting ICBMs are in Canada, when we had Nike [not the shoe] the plan was to shoot incoming warheads over Canadian territory, not US. In return for this favor, we hit Canada with tariffs on lumber and send them acid rain. jttmab

To: Brumar89 who wrote (15764)	10/20/2002 10:28:39 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Interestingly, Switzerland has a law actually requiring citizens to have a gun in the house for civil defense, as another example, and has a fraction of the gun-murder rate of the US. Switzerland isn't under the "defense umbrella" of the US (regardless of what you may think of NATO -g-) Re public gun ownership: no, per se isn't the problem, it's obviously other "root causes", which you prefer to dismiss as not worth discussion. We can certainly ignore those issues and leave the status quo, but those interested in better and safer neighborhoods for themselves and children can train in safe handling of firearms, and also have a discussion of policies that reduce the murder rate. NRA propaganda to the contrary, the two are not mutually exclusive. Like medical insurance or any complex problem, the current public debate is stupid. Any intelligent first step is to find out what works. I.e., which states and metro areas have the lowest gun murder rates, or murder rates of all types? Some states like AZ have concealed weapons laws and low crime, others like NY reduced murder rates with the reverse. There are answers there for those who care to look. Reactionary ideologues who consider any thought of improvement as something to be feared leave the burden for any change to be carried by the liberal and centrist Americans, i.e., 80% of the population. Which is fine, as long as the 80% isn't shouted down by the 20%, as they are now. that's not the usual liberal take on that subject. You're falling for the Rush Limbaugh cheerleading of the RWEs towards a strawman definition of "liberal", putting in features that can be criticized for every fault imaginable, making his show entertaining to those who enjoy outrage as a lifestyle. But that's like saying every non-liberal espouses the Ann Coulter "execute the Democrats" type of criminal mentality.