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: RMF who wrote (907691)	12/11/2015 3:59:26 PM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572507

Most people have speed loaders for their revolvers. They are cheap enough. ebay.com

To: RMF who wrote (907691)	12/11/2015 4:01:27 PM
From: jlallen	1 Recommendation Recommended By TimF Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572507

For some reason the Supreme Court doesn't seem to think much of these assault weapons either. They've REFUSED to hear arguments against local laws BANNING them. There could be a number of reasons they declined to hear the case...it has no precedential value.

To: RMF who wrote (907691)	12/11/2015 4:39:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572507

Can't semiautomatics be modified to fire more rapidly? Often yes but 1 - Usually not easily. 2 - Not legally. 3 - Very few automatic weapons are used in the commission of crime or terrorism within the US. The number would be even lower, probably close to zero, if you only look at converted weapons. 4 - Fewer automatic weapons are used for terrorism in the US then in countries that have far more weapon's restrictions then the US has. That's all reading "more rapidly" as "fully automatic" or "burst fire", or "selective fire". You could more easily (and perhaps even legally) add a "bump stock" or similar device that causes more rapid fire, but at the expense of destroying your accuracy. Simpler and more effective (even for indiscriminate terrorists, much more so if you care about who you hit) to just pull the trigger once for each shot. I assume that the people in this latest attack and the attack in Aurora and the Connecticut school shooting knew a little more than the average person yet they all used these "assault" weapons. If you selectively pick a group of attacks that used these weapons, then they all used these weapons. What a surprise. Many other attacks have used other rifles, or pistols, or shotguns, or bombs. "2 or 3 pistols" - Main downside for the attacker is lower accuracy with a pistol unless your really close. That doesn't mean they don't work for such attacks, witness the two Ft Hood shootings, or the Luby's shooting where one shooter killed 23 people with two pistols. Also the concealability factor would have been a plus for the attacker. Apparently the San Bernadino shooters used pistols as well. Considering the fact that it was an in doors shooting I don't think it would have made a big difference if they didn't have the rifles. For a more dispersed out door situation a hunting rifle might be more effective then what the used. For a close in shooting a shotgun might be more effective. I think use of semi-automatic weapons with a military appearance might be becoming a trend but if so its probably has more to do with the reputation f the weapons or some feeling of toughness or effectiveness because of their appearance than any large difference in weapon effectiveness. If you could really stop them from obtaining such weapons (which would be difficult) they would just use other weapons and be somewhere between almost as effective at killing to more effective depending on the weapon chosen and where and how its used. A weapon like an AR-15 or a semi-auto AK might have a range of effectiveness that is useful, being more effective at long range then a pistol or a shotgun, and possibly slightly more effective at short range then many types of common hunting rifles, but not enough to really make a serious difference. Against unarmed people multiple shooters (or often even one shooter) can create carnage with any modern firearm. They've REFUSED to hear arguments against local laws BANNING them. In a much earlier case they made a decision (allowing a sawed off shotgun ban to stay in effect) they made a decision that would seem to indicate that these weapons would be more likely to be protected (as more military they would be more obvious militia weapons). That was long before there ruling that gun ownership in general is a personal right not somehow a right of the state to have militias. Its likely that at some point another circuit will decide differently then the one the USSC didn't review in this case. If that happens then its more likely the case will be heard by the Supreme Court. In any case no one to my knowledge has ever accused the supreme court of being weapons experts. These are semi-auto rifles, similar to other semi-auto rifles, and similar to semi-auto pistols except that they have a but stock and a longer barrel. Bans against them are based on their appearance rather then their functionality.

To: RMF who wrote (907691)	12/11/2015 5:15:52 PM
From: d[-_-]b	1 Recommendation Recommended By TimF Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572507

Can't semiautomatics be modified to fire more rapidly? For the AR-15 - to convert to full auto requires the correct lower receiver, bolt, buffer and trigger group. The trigger group itself is a controlled item and extremely hard to find legally. If you have the correct receiver - all the parts are just drop in and anyone can do the swap. In this picture you can see there are substantial differences. Full auto on top semi below. .

To: RMF who wrote (907691)	12/11/2015 10:17:08 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572507

>>Can't semiautomatics be modified to fire more rapidly?<< Sure can dude! Shop till you drop! Google is your friend! THANK the NRA! ftfindustries.com