If You Want to Use Australia and England as Gun Control Examples, Please Read This First

a reply to: paraphi

OK. Then how do we reconcile the low or declining homicide rates (England 1920, Australia 1996) with gun restrictions?

Was it simply to decrease the number of murders as you imply? If so, it's a great idea but why stop there? Folks get killed with knives and blunt objects. If it worked with firearms, do the same with those items? A life saved is a life saved.

Yes, I am familiar with the sophistry of object utility. It is purely subjective and as such does not support a solid argument.

Don't get me wrong. I do not support crime and murdering. I am human and get angry at the thought of it. One person infringing on another person's liberty to that extent is anathema to my world view. But I cannot advocate encroachment of said liberty based solely on my feelings.

a reply to: infolurker

My take away is when we alter the socio-economic landscape, unforeseen consequences do take place.

In addition, these increase in crime are geographically specific.

Makes sense.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
However is that one life, while tragic, statistically significant to alter the freedoms of the citizens of those countries?

That's a good question!
I think I say no, but I don't think a more statistically significant number should change minds either.
I'm against gun control however you can't avoid the fact that it saves lives.