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: Chuzzlewit who wrote (36741)	5/3/1999 1:35:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>suppose an outright prohibition on the private ownership of hand guns would result in a 50% reduction in gun-related deaths, would you be in favor of it?< No. >If not, suppose for the sake of argument it completely eliminated gun-related deaths, would you still oppose gun control?< This is a tough one, Chuzzlewit. I would certainly like to see handgun deaths (more specifically. the criminal or negligent ones) zeroed out. But the price would be the rewriting of the Bill of Rights. Not only the 2nd Amendment, but also the amendments relating to property ownership and fair value. I own over $10K in handguns alone - do you imagine for a moment that the Gov't would compensate me properly for them? >tough and effective gun control< Is it not possible that we can have tough and effective gun control without bans and confiscations? We have some pretty tough gun control already in place. I have to sign my life away every time I lay my Visa card down at the local gun store. I am not allowed to carry a gun on my person or in my car. I can't fire a gun, even rimfire , except at a paid range 40 minuted from here. Please define "tough and effective gun control", and it would be nice if you didn't summarily reject the 2nd Amendment.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (36741)	5/3/1999 6:22:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Is there anything in your arguments which doesn't also apply to cars? Deaths in automobile accidents are at unacceptable levels. If there were no cars, there would be no deaths by cars. Therefore, the way to reduce automobile accidents is to eliminate all cars. Indeed, the ONLY way to eliminate all automobile deaths and injuries is to eliminate all cars. I assume you are in favor of reducing automobile deaths. Therefore you must be in favor of eliminating all cars.