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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (152632)	11/24/2004 8:05:16 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Uhmm, I seem to be chasing my tail here. Any system that is widely adopted has to be useful, no? Any intrusive gun control system would likely go through much testing, many revisions, much political argument, and be slowly adopted. It would have to prove its value, or it should be dropped. Good statistical analysis before and after should be used to examine this. Arguing over the details is not relevent at this point. You and I are not going to design such a system tonight. I can imagine in sitting in 1903 with you and arguing over whether flight was possible... It wouldn't accomplish anything. Terrorist wants terror, not a slight increase in the murder rate. Also it would be a hard thing of Osama and Al Qaeda to accomplish. If they were going to make attacks using guns they would do better to do something like what the "DC snipers" did, in several places at once. It wouldn't kill 3000, but it would cause more disruption then randomly killing 3000 over the course of a year over the whole US. Another really scary possibility is something like Beslan. You understand conventional terrorism just fine, I was speculating about something very unconventional. You have provided one piece of evidence that such an approach might accomplish something since most people would not recognize it. Try thinking outside the box just a little.