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: TimF who wrote (944447)	7/3/2016 2:13:02 PM
From: zax	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575597

>> Not a very relevant question Absolutely it was spot on relevant. Your post had statistics on the relative quantity of homicide victims in individual incidents, as a metric. It compared one person armed to two people armed with a gun. It attempted to show an order of magnitude difference. But it failed to compare incidents where nobody was armed with a gun. What was the relative quantity of homicide victims in incidents where nobody had a firearm?

To: TimF who wrote (944447)	7/3/2016 2:28:57 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575597

No Tim, it isn't the appearance. For one, the term "assault weapon" was coined by the gun industry as a marketing tool. But the objection to them goes far beyond their appearance. With high capacity magazines, light trigger pulls, low recoil, small caliber high velocity ammo and a spitzer-type bullet with the center of gravity behind the geometric center of the round, all combine to make them uniquely dangerous. Granted, they are rarely used outside of mass shootings. Handguns account for the bulk of homicides. They aren't really designed for retail murder, but for wholesale murder. They aren't really great for hunting because the tumbling of the projectile messes up a lot of meat. They are great for target shooting because of the low recoil, but so are a lot of rifles.