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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (21519)	6/20/2006 8:10:20 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541604

But getting from high guns to low guns is uncharted territory. Yes, there's the rub. If we could start from scratch... But we can't and ignoring that fact is not helpful. My wishy-washy position, and I am sticking by it, LOL. I'm ambivalent on the issue as well. If there were something to be done I might get engaged about doing it. Conversely, if I had any use for guns I might get engaged about stopping folks from doing it. But neither is the case. The most energy I can muster is to challenge folks who blithely say that there's a lot we can do.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (21519)	6/20/2006 12:46:21 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541604

My only observation is having lived in several different countries, those with low guns/high gun control were safer by several magnitudes than the high guns/low gun control countries. That may have been true for the specific counties you live in, but overall its closer to being the opposite. nationalreview.com mcsm.org largo.org ncpa.org ---- I do think that perhaps getting to almost no guns would lower at least the murder rate (it might not lower the rate of other crimes and in fact would probably increase some of them), but just having a low but not extremely low level of guns tends to mean that the criminals can be armed and the possible victims probably are not.