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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (24765)	8/31/1998 1:04:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<< Read "The Armed Citizen" on the inside cover of "the American Rifleman" each month. >> Right. CGB can read "The American Rifleman" while listening to Rush. Now that I'd buy a ticket to see.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (24765)	8/31/1998 2:54:00 PM
From: jpmac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>>Wanna beer?<< But doesn't presumption often follow on the tail of a beer?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (24765)	9/5/1998 6:03:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Well, maybe we should start over, Alex. Or maybe not! You be the judge. I know both of us have more interesting things to do than get absolutely nowhere on the gun issue. I am unconvinced with your argument about the courts--unless I do not understand what you are saying at all, nothing you bring up is definitively in favor of the second amendment meaning that individuals have the right to bear arms. I might agree that the Supreme Court is avoiding making such a ruling, however, from what I have read. It would be nice to at least have one. In regard to your public safety argument, let's look again at the wording of this statement from that police department in Missouri that I have quoted before: "Statistics show, however, that a firearm is not necessarily an effective weapon. Keeping a gun at home was found to make the owner three more times likely to die violently by gunshot wounds, than the average person through accident, domestic violence or an assailant using the gun against the owner." dps.state.mo.us Would you not agree that the point of this statement is that even if some crimes are prevented by people carrying guns, that the cumulative result is that this group is more, not less, prone to violent death because of their gun possession? Now we are arguing about sources again, I see. I would totally discount "The American Rifleman" is biased. I thought we agreed that we could only cite sources which were clearly not on either side of the issue. Yes?