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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (57046)	2/19/2018 6:49:00 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360632

>>I'm wondering if you could put aside both the 2nd amendment thing and the likelihood of success/waste of time and money thing for the sake of argument and consider what might be the purely practical negative effects of banning them. What holes might their absence leave or what costs might be incurred? I have consistently discussed the most egregious downside for years. And that is it amounts to a sleight of hand. Government has failed to do its job of enforcing existing law and that is the reason these killings occurred. It is an action designed to make people feel good while the killings continue. It takes our eyes off the ball.

To: Lane3 who wrote (57046)	2/21/2018 9:35:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 360632

OK, putting aside constitutional problems, libertarian principles, practical political problems of passing anything serious, and partially the fact that enforcement would be difficult, I'd say a down side is that you would create a black market in whatever you ban. Other downsides depends on exactly what types of bans and controls you put in place. Lets say you ban AR-15s. A possible downside is that to the extent that something can and should be done you use up political capital to get something done which is probably not that effective. (Ban AR-15s some people will get them anyway, others will get similar weapons, others will get rather dissimilar weapons that are still very effective). Another downside, if perhaps one that many would consider a small factor, is the fact that people wouldn't be able to get and practice with the types of rifle the military supplies the army. People who might join the military, or just function as a militia in extraordinarily unlikely extreme corner cases like the US getting invaded (where the government might supply surplus weapons to militia units when it doesn't have the time to fully train and simulate them in to the army, or when it does pull more in to the army but with less time for training), or an armed insurrection against an oppressive government (in revolutions and insurrections the weapons used by the military and security forces are often one major source of arms for the rebels). More likely (but of less impact) the ability to practice with such weapons could be useful for potential future members of the military, or reservists and guard members who are in uniform only 39 days a year most of the time.