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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (691618)	1/7/2013 10:09:32 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577965

Let's get the terminology correct first..... Assault weapons (fully automatic rifles) were banned in 1986. The proposed bans I have seen would affect semi auto rilfes with a military appearance....but they are no more dangerous that a number of other rifles which would not be affected by the proposed ban. The research shows that the prior ban was ineffective. let's talk about actual measures which would prevent the kind of carnage that happened in Aurora and Newtown....if that is even possible.

To: one_less who wrote (691618)	1/7/2013 11:39:32 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577965

You have made this far more complicated than necessary and turned it into a political discussion. I am asking you simply..........should weapons of war......assault weapons.........be allowed on the streets of America? “Do you think assault weapons and multi bullet magazines should be banned?” Let me preface my position by stating that the political actives on both sides is a little confusing. So I am seeking greater clarity before just latching on to a left vs right stance. As I have stated before I think you politicos are asking the wrong questions on the federal level and here on the personal blog level. I am happy to give you a yes or no to your question but I’d like to have a deeper discussion with you on this first, if you are willing. The left: It seems people on the left are totally comfortable with having tax supported armed guards stationed at vulnerable positions, such as those where we have seen shooters in recent times. Starting with the schools, then we could consider theaters and malls. We haven’t seen this type of behavior at transportation centers but other countries have, so we can consider public transportation in the same light. Is this unreasonable? I suppose not if money is no object. Would it mean potential jobs for returning vets, yes that would be a plus. On the other hand we very quickly find ourselves living in a police state. Can we trust such a large and invasive force to be free of corruption? Not if history is any measure. At the same time we have honest decent citizens who are willing to stand up in protective rolls. The right: It seems they want to train and arm teachers. I have been in schools and know the typical teacher trained or not is not a good candidate for this. However, there are trained and capable people in most schools who are already gun owners. Why not start there? The last school I was in had some coaches, a Vice Principle and a couple of teaching staff who were ready willing and able to take on such a role. Teachers are heavily screened with background checks so it wouldn’t take much to determine who should be authorized. The additional advantage here is that a shooter would not be able to make any assumptions like they could if there were a guard station. For what it’s worth the local high school here has an office for armed police inside the school. I don’t have a problem with that as long as it is a community “choice”.

To: one_less who wrote (691618)	1/7/2013 2:21:13 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1577965

The last school I was in had some coaches, a Vice Principle and a couple of teaching staff who were ready willing and able to take on such a role. Teachers are heavily screened with background checks so it wouldn’t take much to determine who should be authorized. The additional advantage here is that a shooter would not be able to make any assumptions like they could if there were a guard station. I favor this approach. ..volunteers heavily screened, appropriately trained, and anonymous to an attacker. In addition.......a uniform (computerized) comprehensive background check for all gun transactions that must be completed in 24 hours and at minimal cost. In addition, the mental heath issue must be examined closely including the role of psychiatric drugs and especially the link between confirmed mental illness and the background check data base. (apparently the Va Tech shooter was confirmed mentally ill but it was not disclosed in the background check). In addition, these so called "No Carry Zones" must be outlawed as the overwhelming majority of these mass shootings occur in them. They make NO sense. In addition......stiff mandatory jail sentences for gun crimes.