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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (599951)	2/6/2011 4:27:57 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1584791

Sounds like a good description of gun owners..... Not that good. Guns are more discriminate and better weapons for defense. Nukes are less likely to stop an attack from other nukes one the attack starts, they might make the attack expensive, but in many scenarios the price they impose on the other country doesn't actually protect you once deterrence fails. Also guns are not typically held for purposes of being taken more seriously by others, they are often carried concealed with the idea being that others won't know that your armed unless you have to use your weapon. They are even less likely to be held for purposes of distracting anyone with feelings of progress. Couldn't possibly be for their own defense, could it? I'm sure that is one reason, but it isn't the only one. The other reasons, are important as well. I mean, that's why we have ours..... Only if you don't distinguish between deterrence and defense, I would.