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: mistermj who wrote (36558)	4/20/2007 7:45:48 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 541982

Thats just plain nutty...you would instantly see the largest show of force by a silent majority the world has ever seen. Umm.. But the rule of law? If there where a rebellion, then we would be justified in putting it down. Patriot Act III! Not so sure about the majority part. Times change. Thats the major lesson of 9/11. Liberties we thought we had can be denied to some or all, if conditions prompt the real majority to accept the restrictions. The silent (or vocal) minority in such cases just loses. Anyway, the question was whether less guns would make the place safer, not whether gun owners are potentially violent, especially if one is trying to take their toy away. I've always assumed that gun owners are potentially violent, and there have been two responses confirming it. AFAIK, it is always someone holding a gun, (and if possession is 9/10'th of the law, they are gun owners) who commits gun violence. From a logical standpoint that is no better than noting that AQ is violent as a group. When we try to squish them, they also fight. This does not mean we would not be better off if they were squished. It might mean short term trouble, but plenty of other western democracies have lower murder rates than we do, and more restrictive gun laws. Anyway, my comment was responding to a nutty comment. The claim was made that more guns = less gun violence. So lets see, that means he is proposing a model like: y(x) = -mx + b where: x = gun prevalence (could be defined several ways) m is a positive number y = gun violence (could be defined several ways) b = a constant. Now it should jump out at you that there is a slight problem with this model when x = 0. That is why I called him on it. If you would like to suggest a more complex model, that meets the claim more guns = less gun violence, by all means, suggest the model and we can discuss its merits, or lack thereof. Note I'm choosing the simplest model that fits his nutty claim.