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 (59000)	3/3/2018 4:03:07 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 363260

FYI: Tommy guns and other machine guns are banned ( virtually), but (R)'s today refuse to make these illegal:

To: Lane3 who wrote (59000)	3/3/2018 4:26:03 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 363260

The NRA has spent a lot of money on how to hijack the discussion of gun control. The whole arguments of technical specifications and detail is an outgrowth of the rational argument that you should have some understanding of what you want to regulate. However, they also cloud the difference between minutia and understanding. The assault weapon ban in the 1990s is actually a good example. The bill focused on the cosmetic. It should have been written to control the aspects that make a military grade weapon different from the others. I do want to point out that it apparently was effective in discouraging mass shootings with the weapons in question. Oddly enough, the supposedly identical civilian style weapons weren't substituted and the number of incidents declined significantly. And then when the ban expired, those thing reversed again. What it didn't do was change the overall trend of declining gun violence, which it wasn't intended to address anyway. But that is what the push behind letting the ban expire was promoting. Failure to address issues it wasn't intended to is apparently a bad thing... So any legislation should be written in such a way as to make mass killings more difficult. Eliminating semi-automatics, or at least regulating them on the same level as full automatic weapons, would be the simplest but hardest to do. Making certain requirements like minimum trigger pull, maximum gun muzzle velocity, characteristics of the bullet, measures to limit how fast the gun can be cycled, etc. is a doable approach. It is more difficult to write the legislation, but it is a detail thing.

To: Lane3 who wrote (59000)	3/22/2018 8:11:27 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 363260

Have been using "military" weapons mostly. Dunno if that's a good choice or not. An AR-15 (semi-auto) looks like an M-16 (selective fire, older models could fire full auto, more modern versions used by the army have a selection for three shot burst not full auto in most cases) but its not a a military weapon in that it isn't usually used by the military, and its semi-auto one trigger pull results in one shot, while the military weapons either have one trigger pull resulting in 3 shots, or one trigger pull resulting in continual rapid shots (typically about 10 per second) until you either release the trigger or run out of ammo (or have a malfunction). Most civilian rifles are semi-auto. You also have bolt action, lever action, pump action etc where you have to perform some action to load the next round not just pull the trigger to shoot it, but semi-autos are very common among non-military looking rifles. The AR-15 isn't deadlier than other semi-auto rifles it just looks more like a weapon the army uses. Semi-auto vs. full auto is a far more important distinction than military look vs. non-military look.