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: The Philosopher who wrote (36665)	5/2/1999 8:42:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Well, I would conclude that the police opinion on assault weapons probably IS true, if you cannot give me some legitimate civilian uses of assault weapons, and I have not really heard any logical and rational ones from anyone else, either. They are simply designed to kill maximum numbers of people all at the same time, period. Do you have a problem with the police being the only armed ones in the country? I hear this argument a lot, but strangely, those other 25 industrialized nations with much lower gun death rates do not seem to be suffering from any lack of basic civil rights, and they are not often swept into jail by out-of-control police, either. Are you an anarchist, then?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (36665)	5/3/1999 7:56:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Just because the police, who would rather be the only armed ones in the country, express an opinion doesn't make it true. This I think is unnecessarily harsh. You will find that most police officers believe in tighter control of firearms. They also believe in strict enforcement of laws requiring use of child restraints in cars, in tighter speed limits, in laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets, in higher drinking ages for teenagers. This does not mean they are a bunch of neo-fascists out to strangle our liberties. In every one of these cases, people who are not required to pick up the messes caused by laxity tend to view the issue as one of abstract freedom. The people who pick up the messes often see them very differently. How many children would you have to see smashed against windshields before you started thinking people ehould be punished for not using child restraints? How many teenaged bikers with heads mashed into the pavement before you started demanding helmet laws? How many kids maimed coming home from bars before you start arguing for a 21-year-old drinking limit? How many homes would you have to walk into where friends and family members had shot each other in arguments before you started having second thoughts about universal armament? Have you ever had to clean up after a shooting? I have, and it isn't nice at all. Not like on TV, with the nice neat little red spots. I would guess that on the 50th, 100th, 200th time, one would start to see things less as a matter of principle and more as a question of doing anything possible to have fewer people shoot each other. PS. I grew up with guns, and still own them. I also think that a lot of people should not be allowed to own or carry weapons. It is not an issue I have fully clarified in my mind, but I do think that certain realities - such as the fact that a hell of a lot of people who buy guns for self defense end up using them to shoot people they know in fits of temper - must be considered.