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: Alighieri who wrote (689924)	12/24/2012 1:13:28 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573984

In the last 16 years, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia has fallen by more than 50 percent. The national rate of gun homicide is one-thirtieth that of the United States. And there hasn't been a single mass shooting since Port Arthur. The articles, prior to recent events, were all over the place on the Australia gun control measures. Anyone who has looked around a bit (avoiding the liberal media accounts, of course) would have easily seen that various "studies" and articles clearly reflect one thing -- the views of the authors. After the recent shootings, however, the liberal media is out in full force with the bullshit. Here is an excellent article that flatly debunks the one you posted. justfactsdaily.com The statistics are complicated to begin with because gun violence in Australia was already falling. The only REAL, UNBIASED consensus is there isn't statistical proof one way or the other, which would rather strongly suggest that gun control as any kind of panacea has itself failed (after all, had the draconian measure worked, we would surely see irrefutable evidence that gun violence had been reduced; evidence which does not exist). The real downside here is that it causes people to take their eyes off the ball. Just look at the "war on drugs" for an excellent example: After 40 years, drug use is out of control, we're spending $100 Billion/year (perhaps more) on it, destroying countless lives, and there is no will to undo it. We don't need to start a war on guns unless there is clear and convincing proof that it (a) is constitutional, and (b) will solve the problem and not actually make it worse.