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: combjelly who wrote (944483)	7/7/2016 10:43:25 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576159

Some weapons were restricted specifically because of such features and versions without them were legal. All mass shootings happen with a semiautomatic weapon A majority of guns are probably semi-automatic weapons. Also I'm not sure your statement is true. For the loose definition of mass shootings that sometimes are used I'm sure it isn't true. For more reasonable definitions (which would reduce the number and total death toll of mass shootings) there are probably exceptions such as the Tolley Square mall shooting were 9 people were shot with a pump shotgun and a revolver. Even if you could somehow get rid of semi-auto weapons (which is totally unrealistic on multiple levels), a pump shotgun and 2 or three revolvers with speed loaders would work for someone trying to rack up a death count up close, or a good bolt action rifle in skilled hands would work for a sniper. Even without guns entirely thousands of people have been killed with aircraft, hundreds with bombs, and people with knives and/or cars have killed enough people to qualify as a mass shooting if they had used a gun. Why on God's green Earth do you want a bayonet lug? I don't think I care much about it. Why on earth do you support laws that make some weapons illegal because of it?