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: Lane3 who wrote (22452)	6/27/2006 5:52:31 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 543849

Yes if you are pushing for gun control understanding "group 3" would be important if you want gun control to actually reduce gun crime (and aren't just for it because you think guns are "icky" or scary). The fact that I think the group is very small is one of the reasons I am against gun control, but it isn't the only one. If I thought group three was huge, and that the proper form of gun control could have a major impact on the group, than my constitutional interpretation, and libertarian instincts would be at war with my desire to lower crime. Some might say that even if group three is small that you can get some reduction in crime by increasing gun control, but that isn't certain. You would lose the deterrent factor that group 1 (and even 2 and 3 they can also be victims of crimes) would have against groups 2 and 3 by owning guns (or by potentially owning guns, a criminal can be deterred by the possibility of a gun in the home or in a concealed holster even if no gun is actually present. You would also lose some of the direct self defense or defense of others with privately owned guns, so I can't see gun control as being justified (even if I put away my constitutional and libertarian qualms and just look at practical results) unless group three is very large.