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 (36391)	4/18/2007 1:48:55 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 541990

I was going to say it was a great point- but I didn't want to pile on.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (36391)	4/18/2007 6:50:38 AM
From: LindyBill	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541990

Dale, I believe it was you who challenged me on my assertation that gun crime was up in Britain. In any case, here is an excerpt from an article in the TIMES UK today on this very subject. Those who wonder about the effect of "mandatory ownership of guns" might read the section on Switzerland. Banning guns is a salve, not a solution The emotional reaction to Dunblane didn't work Virg Tech Magnus Linklater April 18th 2007 [-] ...It is delusion, however, to imagine that controls on their own will stop the rise of gun crime, and the killing that results. In the aftermath of Dunblane, the passionate arguments for an all-out ban won the day, and would be hard to reverse now. It is a complete and effective restriction that has meant that our Olympic shooters can train only outside the country. Those, like Mick North, father of one of the dead girls, who continue to campaign against handguns, have set their face against any relaxation of the law and would like to see the sport of shooting banned from the Olympics. "What do people in Britain want — medals or murder?" he asks. It is an understandable, if obsessional, reaction, but it has little to do with the real issue. The ban has had no discernible effect on gun crime, which has continued a steady rise dating back more than 25 years and which accounted for some 4,000 injuries in the UK last year. Immediately after the ban, the number of shootings actually went up and has stayed up, though the homicide rate, which is relatively low, has been almost unaffected. In Scotland, for instance, the rate of about eight killings a year by guns has remained the same despite the Dunblane ban. Nor does the widespread possession of arms necessarily indicate a violent society. In Switzerland, for instance, where owning a gun is mandatory and where the laws and traditions of the country require every able-bodied adult to keep a semi-automatic weapon at home, crime levels have been historically low — that is, until the horrific events of September 2001, when a deranged gunman broke into the local parliament at Zug, near Zurich, and shot dead 14 people, injuring 14 more, before shooting himself. Although the nation was, understandably, shocked, no one seriously argued that access to weapons was responsible for one inexplicable and insensate act. Banning the use or possession of weapons may be a useful palliative, but it is not the solution. Any government that wants to be seen to be taking action after a violent event can reach for legislation, but it is likely to discover that the social malaise that led to the violence is more deep-seated and intractable. There are strong arguments to suggest that American states such as Virginia should begin copying the reforms adopted by, for instance, California, which has tightened up its gun laws; and they must move against the glorification of the gun, which encourages not only the ownership but the use of arms. In the end, however, that will not be enough. What is needed is a wholesale shift in the national culture — and that will take rather longer than an arms ban. timesonline.co.uk

To: Dale Baker who wrote (36391)	4/18/2007 7:26:51 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541990

Contradictions are so messy....government is bad until government is good, or government is good until government is bad, I get so confused.... If its the military, it's good. If it has anything to do with poverty--except locking 'em up for not having a decent respect for property rights or doping themselves up so that they can't be good workers--then it's bad. Get with the program. And--sidebar--if you posted things on his thread that were analogous to the things he posts on this thread--you would be first warned to stop in a "friendly" little PM, and then banned if you persisted. Not that I'm suggesting he be banned--far from it. Just pointing it out in case someone doesn't know the guy.