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: combjelly who wrote (57779)	2/23/2018 4:20:34 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By TimF Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 363280

wo, the number of killed and wounded when those weapons are used seems to be higher than when one isn't used. As opposed to what? Columbine managed to produce quite a few bodies with shotguns. And do you think that bombs would produce fewer instances or fewer casualties per instance than military rifles? One, it is used in an increasing percentage of mass shootings. We've been talking about schoolkids here. There have been two instances this century. Columbine was back into the previous century and they did not use military rifles. Not a lot of data to work with. Sure, it would seem that military rifles would increase the body count. But we don't know what tack murderers would take absent their availability.

To: combjelly who wrote (57779)	2/23/2018 4:42:59 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 363280

>> Granted, it is a supposition that a tool optimized for a given task is actually better at it. I'm glad to see you admit that, but keep in mind they aren't autonomous. It matters who is firing it and what the context is. I can assure you my father-in-law with a 30/30 or 30-06 or even a slug in a shotgun, would have hit his target more frequently than any of these nitwits with Ar15s. Regardless of the AR's features. The principal "benefit" of an AR is that you can be a lousy shot and still kill some victims without even aiming. That much is true. These are NOT "assault weapons". As pointed out earlier, that is a POLITICAL term, NOT a technical one. They are semiautomatics, no different from other rifles or shotguns or many handguns. They are stylish, I suppose, and that is how they are distinguished from other rifles.