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: Cogito who wrote (36559)	4/20/2007 5:06:01 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 541933

Nicely put Allen

To: Cogito who wrote (36559)	4/20/2007 5:49:34 PM
From: LindyBill	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

First, there are many non-lethal weapons that can stop a human being in his tracks. So that's another set of options right there. What? Pepper spray or a Taser? Perhaps you are carrying a nunchuck? Good luck to you. No one will pull one of these out and use it when faced with a shooter. But we have proof that people will pull out a gun. You are just smokescreening. To respond to them with a massive proliferation of firearms throughout the country in all settings would be a huge overreaction, and it would be likely to exacerbate many other problems Take the left/right kneejerk reaction out of this equation and look at this situation realisticaly. First off, you are not going to be able to eliminate guns. Secondly, most people won't carry one even if it's totally permissable. The number of people walking around with guns is always going to be very small. But all it takes is one who is willing to use it. You use "likely to exacerbate many other problems" as a throw in that history on this subject does not back up. We know of several mass shooting situations where people having access to guns has stopped the shooter. Not interfering with peoples right to have them could possibly stop even more.