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: golfer72 who wrote (1360082)	5/25/2022 11:51:54 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579259

America, learn from Australia’s agony: How one country reacted to its worst-ever gun massacre 25 years ago By Andrew Leigh New York Daily News Apr 26, 2021 at 5:00 am nydailynews.com A quarter of a century ago, on April 28-29, 1996, a lone gunman murdered 35 Australians at the historic site of Port Arthur in Tasmania. At the time, Australia’s population was 18 million, so as a share of the population, the death toll was the equivalent of a shooting spree in the United States today costing more than 600 lives. The massacre was unique in its brutality, but it followed a spate of mass shootings. Over the previous decade, Australia had experienced an average of one mass shooting annually (where a mass shooting is defined as five or more victims). Melbourne experienced the Hoddle St. and Queen St. massacres, Sydney the Surry Hills and Strathfield massacres. Yet because of the unprecedented death toll, the Port Arthur Massacre spurred governments to act. Within a fortnight, state and territory police ministers met and agreed to reform Australia’s gun laws. Most semi-automatic weapons were banned for civilian use. Licensing and registration rules were tightened. A national firearms registry was established. Gun owners had to provide a justification for owning a weapon, and personal security was specifically excluded as a valid reason. Having tightened the rules, the national government promised that it would buy back newly banned firearms at market prices. Australians could simply walk into their local police station with a gun, and walk out with cash. The gun buyback also operated as an amnesty, in which anyone could drop off a gun with their local police for safe disposal, no questions asked. By the time the amnesty was over, more than 600,000 firearms had been handed back. While critics of gun buybacks often deride them as merely allowing criminals to upgrade their arsenals, the Australian gun buyback seemed to disproportionately involve people handing back the only gun they owned. As a result of the buyback, the share of gun-owning households nearly halved, from 15% to 8%. The starkest impact of the National Firearms Agreement was on mass shootings: Australia suffered none in the decade afterward. Since then, the country has experienced only two mass shootings — both of which were family murder-suicides. But mass shootings account for only a tiny share of all gun deaths, so to estimate the impact on homicide and suicide, Wilfrid Laurier University economist Christine Neill and I looked at differences across Australian states and territories. In some jurisdictions, relatively few weapons were handed back. In others, the share was much larger. We asked the question: Did these differences predict changes in the death rate? Our findings showed that the answer was yes. In Tasmania, where the largest number of weapons were handed back, the drop in firearms suicide and homicide was greatest. In the Australian Capital Territory, where the buyback had the smallest effect, there was a commensurately smaller impact on gun deaths. And we found little evidence that those looking to kill themselves or others switched to equally lethal techniques. Overall, we estimated that the National Firearms Agreement saved around 200 lives a year, for a total of nearly 5,000 lives since the agreement. Although the political focus of the reforms had been on homicide, a majority of the averted deaths have been suicides. What might the United States learn from our experience? First, there is a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. These differences can also be seen in a comparison between Australia and the United States. As a share of the population, the United States today has seven times as many guns as Australia, 29 times as many gun homicides, and 10 times as many gun suicides. Another lesson is the ability of sport shooters to thrive alongside reasonable gun ownership restrictions. As a marathon runner, a single run can take me past both the rifle range and the pistol club. But hardly any Australian firearms owners leave a loaded pistol in their bedside drawer or car glovebox, nor do teens tuck a weapon into their waistband on a Saturday night. Australia’s approach to gun control aligns with the once-moderate stance of the National Rifle Association, which in the late-1960s and early-1970s supported a ban on cheap handguns, reasoning that a proliferation of weapons on the streets tarnished the reputation of honest gun owners. Finally, the Australian experience emphasizes the importance of acting in the wake of tragedy. Having lost a friend to gun violence, I can understand why some might see it as disrespectful to debate policy while bodies are being buried. But history teaches us that those who yield to the argument that “this is not the time to talk about gun laws” are unable to regain the momentum. Let us hope that the United States never sees a gun massacre as sizable as Port Arthur. Let us also hope that the United States learns from how Australia responded to the terrible carnage it suffered. Leigh is a member of the Australian parliament, and a former professor of economics at the Australian National University.

To: golfer72 who wrote (1360082)	5/25/2022 11:58:30 PM
From: sylvester80	1 Recommendation Recommended By rdkflorida2 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579259

FU HYPOCRITES: Guns are banned during Trump's upcoming speech at the NRA conference npr.org May 25, 202210:48 AM ET JOE HERNANDEZ Former President Donald Trump is scheduled to speak at the National Rifle Association's Annual Leadership Forum on Friday. But audience members at the group's annual meeting, being held this year in Houston, won't be able to carry guns during his address. The conference is going ahead in the shadow of Tuesday's mass shooting at a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school that killed at least 21 people — including 19 students. According to the NRA, the Secret Service is taking control of the hall during Trump's speech and is prohibiting attendees from having firearms, firearms accessories and knives. Ammunition, laser pointers, pepper spray, toy guns, backpacks and other items also won't be allowed. The Secret Service will search attendees with magnetometers before they enter the hall, the NRA said. This isn't the first time firearms have been off-limits during a part of the gun group's annual convention. In 2018 a similar prohibition was put in place during a speech by then-Vice President Mike Pence. The Secret Service told NPR in a statement at the time that the agency has the "authority to preclude firearms from entering sites visited by our protectees, including those located in open-carry states." In 1999, after the mass shooting at Columbine High School that left 13 people dead, the NRA considered canceling its annual convention scheduled for a few days later in Denver but ultimately decided to go ahead with the event.