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: JeffA who wrote (95252)	4/18/2007 5:14:46 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

The problem is that people like Cho have access to guns. Unfortunately, not only are there many more like him, there are a good number of people nowadays that go crazy for any little thing. Given that these incidents happen frequently, albeit not on this scale, it is obvious that the status quo is not working. Or, are we happy with the current death toll? So, we can go a few different ways: 1) Arm more people, allow them to defend themselves in places where they can't right now: schools, workplaces, government offices, airports, etc - where ever some looney might show up. 2) Disarm everyone, except police. 3) Attempt to arm the right people while disarming the wrong people. I would like to see 2). It works in England, and Europe, and elsewhere. But, I understand that the opposition from gun owners would make that impractical. So, I'm for 3. How do we make sure the right people have guns, in the right place, and the wrong people don't? It's a numbers game. More guards and police? More stringent background checks to cut down on the wrong people having guns? Less access to guns unless you meet some criteria? As for 1, that, IMO, would be lunacy. Although you might have no intention of 'going Wild West', you can't vouch for everyone else. If more people are armed, chances are some of the 'wrong' ones will be included. People who go crazy when someone cuts them off in traffic. Or people who hate their jobs and go postal. Or people with grudges against businesses, lawyers, etc. There are, unfortunately, a LOT of people out there that should never come within 100 feet of a firearm. Now, if you want to have a reasonable discussion about this, let's have at it. If not, and you just want to vent about how moronic the anti-gun people are, take it up with AS. I'm sure he'll be glad to trade vitriol with you.

To: JeffA who wrote (95252)	4/18/2007 7:47:07 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 173976

The NRA needs to back psychiatric tests for gun-owners. That is becoming crystal clear and it's something Dems and Repubs should be able to agree on. The test would be a reference letter from someone of authority. This should weed out 90% of the nutsos. Many nutsos might also have to surrender their weapons. The rightwing will object to that but our children are at stake here. Just like alcoholics aren't allowed to drive after two DUI's, nutsos should be banned from opwning weapons.

To: JeffA who wrote (95252)	4/18/2007 9:48:23 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Cho was pronounced "mentally ill" by campus police and was hospitalized, yet he was still able to go to any gun store in Virginia and get any weapons he wanted without any waiting period. Now that is insane. It's also hard evidence the NRA has exposed our kids and society to mass murder. Gun safety, my ass. That's not what the NRA is all about at all. it's about fat profits for gun makers no matter who dies in the process. This needs to change and Republicans especially need to start saying NO! to the NRA.