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: Alighieri who wrote (698771)	2/13/2013 11:35:02 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576153

>> Yes, if the risk is abated and not increased for everyone else. The argument I have made and you have ignored all along is that weapons actually increase the risk of intended and unintended harm...particularly on a college campus, where out of control behavior is quite common. That's too bad considering people have been buying guns at unprecedented rates since obama took office. Perhaps he needs a new strategy.

To: Alighieri who wrote (698771)	2/13/2013 12:21:11 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576153

If a person is at risk of being harmed should they be "allowed," by the government, to carry personal protection? Yes, if the risk is abated and not increased for everyone else. The argument I have made and you have ignored all along is that weapons actually increase the risk of intended and unintended harm...particularly on a college campus, where out of control behavior is quite common. The risk of injury is abated by allowing people to carry personal protection, not to mention it is fundamentally a human necessity to protect oneself from harm. It doesn’t seem we disagree on this. Virtually every human endeavor includes aspects of risk that are increased for every other being, including the planet Earth. Is the risk of personal protection (by fire arm) increasing the risk for everyone else? Yes. Is the risk of everyone else becoming a victim of criminal attack reduced? Yes. Is the risk of government corruption (causing harm to individuals reduced? or taking freedom from the masses reduced?). Yes. Is the risk to innocent bystanders increased, or resulting from normally decent people wacking out on a bad day? Yes. Yes, there are risks, and some are increased while others are reduced. However, the basic necessity of freedom (being able to protect oneself) makes a society of free people strong and reduces all the risks to human freedom for everyone. The risk of injury to everyone else is increased by allowing people to drive. (10.8 million motor vehicle accidents in 2009, 35,900 deaths). So, as you can see, that principle is not a guiding principle in all practicality. Now quit using these silly and obliquely related references and recognize that contraception is not a controlled practice... The reference is to principle, which does not change per partisan whim. …and recognize that contraception is not a controlled practice...it has no potential for physical consequence to un-associated citizenry … Sexual impropriety has destroyed far more lives than any other physical act throughout history. Children are un-associated, grandparents who end up raising the products of teen pregnancy, unwanted children, adoptions, friends, relatives, co-workers, spouses and every circle of friends and loved ones that is indirectly effected. The destruction of hopes, plans, expectations, livelihoods, homes, material resources, psychological wellbeing are all potential for serious consequences to un-associated citizenry, often even the source of violent physical motivations …I could go on but I think you get the point. …as a gun does when aimed in the wrong direction, or by a drunken student, or by mistake or intentionally to settle a score, or you name it in any number of other harmful circumstances. Aiming a gun in the wrong direction is not a serious consideration. It happens, rarely and is considered an accident, bathtub accidents are more common. I can actually see the viability of your argument about students now. I’ve spent a lot of time on campuses and there are always students who are living a wild and drunken life style. That includes staff, especially grad students who are given teaching assignments. I would be more comfortable with your position if you narrowed it to (where alcohol is allowed). That is only because you have a good argument about out of control drunken behavior and statistics support it as a special case. If that is campus wide, then fine I'm willing to change my position on this as a special case. ... but not the "or you name it in any number of other harmful circumstances."