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 : Guns and Weapons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WTSherman who wrote (4)	4/24/1999 2:21:00 PM
From: Fangorn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149

WT, I will only pick on your most blatant mistatements of fact re >As to automatic weapons they are already illegal but that doesn't stop gangs from using them. This is just not true. < It is absolutely illegal in every jurisdiction in the US for a private citizen to possess an automatic weapon. You have NEVER seen an operable "automatic weapon" for sale at any legal gun show ever. Admit it. While it is true that a knowledgable person can convert an semi-automatic weapon to full auto that in itself is an illegal act. Violent crime rates have dropped nationally but one counter example doesn't change the fact that the rate in states with liberalized concealed carry rules HAVE dropped faster than the national average. Guiliani (sp?) has done wonders in NY but anyone who wants a gun can get it illegally in the City or legally by going to NJ or elsewhere. There is no doubt that the average mugger or purse snatcher is less likely to be carrying because of the automatic jailtime for having a gun. You also ignored my claim that banning guns would have NO effect on criminals. They by definition don't obey the law anyway. You also ignored the fact that many do in fact protect themselves from harm and property loss with LEGAL guns. Fear for one's safety is a very good reason to want a gun. Having the POWER to defend oneself is a very rational response. As to the kids killing themselves, yes they did but we don't know whether they went in with that intention or if, after killing several people, they took that as the easiest route out of the mess they were in. After all I merely said they MIGHT have reconsidered. And the fact remains an armed teacher or janitor or passerby may well have stopped them before they did as much damage as they did. During a similar episode in Louisiana a few years ago a teacher retrieved a gun from his car and stopped a whacko student's rampage, don't remember whether by shooting him or just scaring him. The teacher was charged with having a gun on school property but there is no doubt his action saved several lives. Finally characterizing anyone who disagrees with your position as a "gun nut" just tells me you are arguing from emotion and have not bothered to even examine the other side. Put yourself in the shoes of the store owner who has been robbed at (almost certainly illegally obtained) gun point five times in the last two years and tell me you wouldn't be thinking of getting a gun to protect yourself and your property and not just to assuage your feeling of powerlessness. Just so you know where I am coming from, I own two guns, a shotgun and a rifle which I occasionally use for hunting. I doubt I could aim a gun at a person, much less shoot at them, to save my own life though I hope I could to save someone else's life. From a "gun nut"... NOT!!!

To: WTSherman who wrote (4)	4/25/1999 8:47:00 AM
From: Cage Rattler	Respond to of 149

WT: Good morning. I'm not chasing you around -- just interested in the psychology of fact alteration as a function of emotionally based logic. With that said, I hate to agree with you but when you site <<...Yet, NYC has the most stringent gun control laws of any city in U.S. Crime is down, is has nothing to do with concealed weapons. In NYC there is an automatic 1 year prison sentence for anyone with an unlicensed, concealed weapon. Yet, murder is down from 2,200 in 1992 to 600 in 1998. Why? More effective police work, tougher sentencing laws and a general aging of the population.>> you are on target with that final sentence; stop explaining and start negatively reinforcing criminal behavior to produce an avoidance response to antisocial behavior. As you know the Sullivan law has been in place in NYC practically forever, and the alleged crime reduction there suggests that gun ownership and crime are discrete, independent variables -- or did I miss something? I was looking forward to more enlightenment concerning the NVA tactics -- then I thought we might move on to the Afgans as another positive example of gun ownership and the effect upon an invading army. I read in your posts that you carried a weapon in Nam; what was your assignment?