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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srexley who wrote (39301)	3/16/2005 4:43:45 PM
From: fresc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Every human should have the right to clean water, and every baby should have the right to immunization. (Did you know that six million people die every year from the Global ATM-- AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria?) Gay people should have the same rights as straight people, including the right to be married. Hand guns should be illegal to own. Here are some statistics from Physicians for Social Responsibility: There are over 30,000 gun related deaths a year in the US; firearm injuries cost $100 billion a year, and firearm injuries epidemic is ten times larger than the polio epidemic of the first half of this century. You think guns are used for self defense? They are four times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, seven times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and eleven times more likely to be used to commit or attempt a suicide. In 72 percent of unintentional deaths and injuries, suicide, and suicide attempts of 0-19 year olds, the firearm was stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend. Over half of all firearm deaths are suicides. When your kids go over a friend's house to play, forget what movies they'll watch-- do you know if there is an unlocked gun there? About 40% of US homes have at least one gun and 48% of gun homes with children do not regularly make sure they are safely locked. Most nations do not allow citizens to have guns, and are shocked by the gun violence in the US. Hope your gun is locked in that trailor :)

To: Srexley who wrote (39301)	3/16/2005 4:51:38 PM
From: fresc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Having a Firearm in the Home is More Dangerous than Protective (this would apply to trailor homes, RED) Studies by public health professionals have repeatedly found that having a gun around for any reason increases the likelihood that a family member -- as opposed to a criminal -- will be injured or killed with a gun. For example, a September 17, 2001 Associated Press article reported that a 3 year-old boy from Virginia had fatally shot himself with a handgun his father said he brought into the house for protection after the terrorist attacks. A 1997 American Journal of Public Health study showed that family members that had a history of buying a handgun were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as were persons who had no such family history of gun purchase. This increased risk persisted for more than five years after the handgun was purchased. Other studies have looked specifically at the more narrow question of keeping guns in the home for self-defense. One study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that having a gun in the home made it nearly three times more likely that someone in the family would be killed. The risk of firearm-related homicide is particularly high for women, who are most likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. A 1997 study in the Archives of Internal Medicine examined risk factors for violent death of women in the home. The study found that women who were killed by a spouse, lover, or close relative usually were killed in the context of a quarrel, physical domestic fight, or assault. Homicide was frequently followed by the perpetrator committing suicide, and a handgun was the weapon most frequently used. When looking at the risk of a woman being killed at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative, the authors found that having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of such a homicide. Even the gun press admits the risk. Describing the demise of so-called "lintel guns," firearms hung over the door ready for immediate action in frontier times, Shooting Sports Retailer noted, "Today, guns in a home used for self protection are not hung over the door but are more likely in a desk drawer or beside the bed in a night stand. When a child is hurt in a firearm accident it is often the self defense gun that was found, played with, and ultimately fired by the youngster." Firearms Are More Likely to be Used in Crimes Than to Prevent Them How often do people use guns successfully to protect themselves from criminal acts? Does it justify the deaths and damage that comes with guns? Apparently not. Most studies have found that guns play a relatively minor role in preventing crime but a major role in facilitating it. A U.S. Department of Justice study found that, on the average, between 1987 and 1992 only one percent of actual or attempted victims of violent crime, or about 62,000 people, attempted to defend themselves with a firearm. On the other hand, criminals armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes in 1992. Data from the FBI's Crime in the United States reveal that for every time in 1999 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 48 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone. Firearms Could Have Safety-Related Defects Firearms could contain defects in design or manufacture making them likely to unintentionally discharge. Guns with safety-related defects can kill or seriously injure gun owners and innocent bystanders, including children. This consequence is the result of the firearm industry's exemption from basic health and safety regulation. No federal agency has the authority to set safety standards for guns; require gun manufacturers to repair, replace, recall, or refund the purchase price of defective guns; or to mandate warnings. Currently, the only protection afforded those hurt by defective guns is to file a lawsuit after a victim is killed or injured. Research That Supports the Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is Flawed One advocate of the value of handguns for self-defense is Gary Kleck, professor of criminology at Florida State University in Tallahassee. Kleck and his colleague Mark Gertz say their survey research indicates that civilians use guns in self-defense up to 2.5 million times a year. The NRA and the gun industry have widely cited Kleck's work as proof of the value of owning a gun. But Dr. David Hemenway, a professor at Harvard's School of Public Health, dissected the work of Kleck and Gertz in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, concluding that their survey contained "a huge overestimation bias" and that their estimate is "highly exaggerated." Hemenway applied Kleck and Gertz's methodology to a 1994 ABC News/Washington Post survey in which people were asked if they had ever seen an alien spacecraft or come into direct contact with a space alien. He demonstrated that, by the application of Kleck and Gertz's methodology, one would conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen a spacecraft from another planet and more than a million have actually met space aliens.

To: Srexley who wrote (39301)	3/16/2005 6:03:09 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"You led me to believe that you would ...." But I agree with your statement "Laws are written typically in response to people doing something you don't want them to do." That wasn't the point. The question is: Do you have a right to be a cannibal? [assuming there is no law to prohibit it]. This stuff isn't as easy as it might seem. There's a little ditty that floats around..."that all humans are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among those are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness." Hope I got all the words right. Once upon a time I thought I knew what that meant...back in elementary school it was. Inalienable...they told us that meant it can't be taken away, surrendered, or transferred. I guess I was 10 when I believed that ditty. Then we asked about the death penalty. How "inalienable" is life when there is a death penalty? At age 10, it was more simply worded I'm sure. Now we see people indefinitely detained without charges, without access to lawyers and I ask...How inalienable is liberty? If a person thinks he is being threatened he/she can take another person's life. Doesn't look to me like "life" is much of an inalienable right. I think when survival is at stake the rules are different than when things are working normally. Flexibility in the "Rule of Law"...it depends, sometimes it's agains the law, sometimes not. They actually do that more in the UK; they have laws wrt force that are guided by "common sense"; it seems to mostly work. But in the US we insist on "Where's the line?" I think that was your intent, and in my mind that is why it is a good example of playing word games instead of answering a question forthright. If I haven't answered your question, it's not because I haven't tried. This Creator guy/gal apparently endows rights...I'm not sure what happens to the poor atheists here. The Creator endows them whether there's a creator or not. "I didn't see the words protect your property and defend yourself enumerated in the Constitution."--- My right to keep and bear arms allows me to do this. Ignoring your use of the word "right"...Calling the police also affords you some protection. A burglar alarm might do even better than the police or a gun, if we're talking about your property. I think it's been shown that the silly little sign that says you have an alarm does as good a job as having an alarm. There are various ways to achieve protection. Or you can use your gun to take away that inalienable right to life if you feel kinda threatened. Besides, it's your word against his and he's dead. As an aside, notice the little game you [we] are playing. Sometimes we say "Where are those words in the Constitution"...sometimes we say..."That's what the Framers intended." Aren't we picking and choosing the convenient moments when to use those phrases. Nor are we the only ones. Where is the word "Privacy" in the Constitution? I'll bet that Scalia won't be so keen on his Constitutional constructionism, [common law circa 1791 applies] when it comes to Roe v. Wade... college.hmco.com And if the Supreme Court rules in a manner where they interpret ...it's ok as long as they agree with the Court, if they don't agree with the Court then they're judicial activists and making law. On the other hand, some people don't really give a shit, whether some particular legislation is unconstitutional. Line item veto, being one. Obviously unconstitutional. It's a no brainer. Partial birth abortion, another obviously unconstitutional law. As far as I'm concerned, any member of Congress that voted for either one of those shouldn't be sitting in Congress. Do you feel the framers did not feel you had a right to do this? I am pretty sure they were the type of people that will fight for what is right. Maybe you have some tidbit of history that shows they do not want you to be able to protect yourself. I'm not sure what people "want" necessarily determines what is a guaranteed right. They can amend the Constitution to have that right specifically enumerated and there is a process for doing that. Alternatively, we can get into the argument...where are those words in the Constitution vs. that's what the Framers intended. Please explain how to get all the guns away from criminals. Otherwise looks sort of stupid to imply that I am stupid to believe it would be difficult and very close to impossible to do. There was a British Member of Parliament [MP] that said something pretty nifty. I'm sorry I don't remember his name. But, he said..."Every complex social problem has a simple solution....and it's wrong." Part of the problem is that people on both sides of any issue pretend that there is some silver bullet that solves the problem; the opposition notes that the solution will not solve the problem by itself. Hence don't do it. Let's wait until the silver bullet comes. Compound that with the expectation that "the solution" should solve the problem in let's say 6 months or less. Causes of deaths are rather interesting in perspective. My original post on this subject was on the 13th; it's now the 16th. On average, 82 people die every day from gunshots. ~246 people are dead while we've been pissing about "rights". And you're correct; more people die in car accidents than by gunshot wounds. But that's not the highest cause of death. Look up deaths caused by medical errors on the part of doctors. Makes auto deaths look small. But what is the main legislative effort wrt doctors...limit their liability. Back to gun deaths...let's look at it from the small perspective. You're worried about having a gun to protect yourself, when your real worry should be driving and your doctor? Does that make sense? On the other hand, how many people die from marijuana each year. I think it's zero. But that is illegal. Marijuana, in pursuit of happiness, illegal. jttmab