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 (57705)	2/23/2018 3:12:08 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362064

2) it is just an assumption that getting rid of these weapons will lower the body counts. Well, the idea is based on a few facts. One, it is used in an increasing percentage of mass shootings. Two, the number of killed and wounded when those weapons are used seems to be higher than when one isn't used. Three, well it is designed for a higher causality rate. Notes. In two, I posted "seems". Reports of shootings usually detail the weapons used or at the scene. Rarely, if ever, is there a breakdown as to what weapon is responsible for what injury. A reason is the UCR(universal crime report) doesn't have a way to enter that information. So about the only way to get that information is to read all of the autopsy and medical reports for a given incident. Granted, it is a supposition that a tool optimized for a given task is actually better at it.