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 : WHY?? Littleton Colorado -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Street who wrote (40)	4/22/1999 10:38:00 AM
From: Robert B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 368

<<There IS a need for guns-- for protection of home and family. I have every right to protect myself.... >> You need to look deeper into this. I attended a seminar recently in which a police chief in my city claimed that you were safer not having a gun in your home during a break-in. People without guns get hurt or killed less often than those with guns in these cases. Often, the family's gun ended up being used on the family. But more often, the thief just wants to steal and not hurt anyone. When someone in the family pulls a gun out, the situation then becomes violent. Now, if the U.S. had a gun policy similar to Great Britain's policy and out violent crime rate dropped like theirs did, wouldn't this end up being a much better way to protect your family? I agree that in some cases there is a need for guns, but the negatives far outweigh the positives, in my opinion.