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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (44201)	4/28/1999 12:58:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 67261

>Neocon never said anything about "until the nineties". He said "last few years", followed later with the "I meant the nineties, dope".< And this means he meant the nineties. He simply gave a broad statement at first and then clarified it later. Perhaps you would have a point had he initially said “two years ago.” Then he would have had to retract and admit the figure was erroneous. Even so, you should allow him to retract. (Surely we have better things to do than argue this issue) >So what? Yes, the last few years were in the nineties.< Indeed they were, and because so many massacres occurred in them they are noteworthy. >No, I don't think most people would count '92, when Bush was President, as one of "the last few years".< Perhaps not. It is really a nebulous thing. When speaking in broad terms and making comparisons with one's “lifetime”, very many people would include 1992 and in some cases even 1990. It really depends upon the context of the discussion. The imprecision of the statement no doubt compelled Neocon to specify that he meant “the nineties.” I do not think he called you a dope because you made reference to his imprecision. He did it because you sarcastically used the imprecision as a weapon (a very faulty one) against his overall point. Gotta run.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (44201)	4/28/1999 1:08:00 PM
From: halfscot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Daniel: When quoting the "30k+/year firearms deaths" it would be informative to see how those deaths are apportioned: 18,000+ are by suicide (out of 30k+ suicides/yr.) 15,000+ are by homicide and legal intervention 1,500+ are by accident of which approx. a third are by handgun accidents and a fifth by hunting accidents. "75 lives are saved by use of a firearm in self-defense for every 1 that is lost. (Kleck Study) " The FBI's own stats show a million crimes/year are averted by the law-abiding public's use of firearms. An argument can logically be made that the benefit afforded to the public by firearms outweighs by a large margin the detriment imposed. halfscot