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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (334010)	4/19/2007 12:15:09 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573827

No. I'm merely stating that restrictions on guns help to make incidents like this more severe, and that it would have been fortunate if one or more of the victims or intended victims where armed and could have stopped the killer. You want to pick an incident to use to argue for gun control? Try impulse shootings or accidental shootings. A planned, relatively lengthy massacre like this, that happened in an area where guns are against the rules doesn't support your case, it is rather a very good argument against restrictions on guns. People need to be able to defend themselves against the likes of Cho Seung-Hui. The cops didn't do the job, and probably couldn't do it, at least not before he killed 32 people. Why do we have so many of these school massacres and other countries don't?