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 (57632)	2/23/2018 8:47:13 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362050

You have described an approach to getting rid of automatic guns. Which is not the same thing as as an approach to averting mass killings. What do you want? A guarantee? A land of roughneck pioneers and outback settlers, Australia had never embraced much government regulation and certainly not about their guns. This was a land of almost cartoonish toughness and self-reliance, home of Crocodile Dundee and Australian rules football. Here even the kangaroos box. But Port Arthur had followed too many prior deadly shooting sprees and Australians were clearly sick to death of them. So what happened after the assault-weapon ban? Well therein lies the other half of the story twist noted above: Nothing. Nothing, that is, in a good way. Australian independence didn’t end. Tyranny didn’t come. Australians still hunted and explored and big-wave surfed to their hearts’ content. Their economy didn’t crash; Invaders never arrived. Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up. Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get along and legislate. As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one in the past 22 years. fortune.com Al

To: Lane3 who wrote (57632)	2/23/2018 10:42:55 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362050

>>You have described an approach to getting rid of automatic guns. Which is not the same thing as as an approach to averting mass killings. I may have missed it but what would you do if you were The ruler of America to solve this problem?

To: Lane3 who wrote (57632)	2/23/2018 11:56:45 AM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362050

Statistics disagree. When England had a mass shooting 30 years ago they banned hand guns. No mass shooting since. In Japan they have only one gun for every 100 people and less than 100 gun deaths a year. And then there is the Australia evidence. <<You have described an approach to getting rid of automatic guns. Which is not the same thing as as an approach to averting mass killings.