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: combjelly who wrote (891316)	10/3/2015 11:15:21 AM
From: locogringo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575421

Every story has 2 sides. OOPS! Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work – And it Wouldn’t Work in America <snip> Two questions should be asked and answered: (1) Did the post–Port Arthur laws lead to a clear reduction of gun violence, and (2) What would an American version of the “Australian model” look like? Gun-control activists claim that the Australian model directly resulted in a pronounced fall in the gun-suicide rate and the gun-homicide rate. But these claims are disputable. <snip> Did the Australian model at least reduce gun-related homicides? That is hotly disputed. <entire article> Read more at: nationalreview.com

To: combjelly who wrote (891316)	10/3/2015 1:31:23 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575421

Australia has proven no such thing. c8.nrostatic.com 6. Conclusion This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the National Firearms Agreement on gun deaths. Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods. Since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, two other shooting incidents have attracted much media attention in Australia. An incident on 21 October 2002 at Monash University, in which a gunman killed two people and wounded five, prompted the National Handgun Buyback Act of 2003. Under this scheme that ran from July to December 2003, 70,000 handguns were removed from the community at a cost of approximately A$69 million. Another shooting on 18 June 2007, in which a lone gunman killed a man who had come to the aid of an assault victim and seriously wounded two others in Melbourne’s central business district during morning rush hour, renewed calls for tougher gun controls. Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests 23 that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.

To: combjelly who wrote (891316)	10/3/2015 1:39:02 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575421

>> So far, these are the two models we know work. Except neither of them is "known" to work. That just you spouting your political beliefs with no foundation for them other than ideology. Statistically, it simply hasn't been shown. What WILL make a substantial difference, and is likely to provide much better results is the development of geofencing technologies so that the owners of weapons can have absolute control of when and where they can be fired.

To: combjelly who wrote (891316)	10/4/2015 1:28:23 PM
From: locogringo	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB longnshort Respond to of 1575421

HT:copeland Meanwhile, on page 8, a school age jihadi in Australia ran into a police station today and killed a police employee with a handgun. So much for Australia's strict gun laws preventing this tragedy. dailymail.co.uk