JessFR;13269709 said:
I used the word freedoms instead of rights for a reason. Why remove a freedom if there's no tangible benefit. And if there is a tangible benefit to Australian gun control, what is it? Emotional feelings are not tangible.
How does Australian gun control demonstrably work? You seem to have largely ignored my argument. This is more about freedoms than rights. And the principle that a freedom should not be removed unless it has a tangible benefit, regardless of your own interest in what that freedom provides. I believe in it, do you? That is my number one question, do you believe that freedoms should not be removed unless there is tangible benefit or not? If so, then how was the 96 gun control successful tangibly. If not, we are too different philosophically and have nothing further to discuss.
as i said, i am happy to agree to disagree.
The tangible benefits, and reasons
I see Australia's gun laws being a success, is the relatively low level of gun crime in most of the country.
The fact that people rarely use guns or the threat of guns to settle disputes is something arguably achieved by taking a large amount of firearms out of the community.
The drop in self inflicted gunshots in suicides is a pretty positive thing as well.
And, most topically, Australia does not have a recent history of gun massacres.
Note that i am using no manipulated figures, no disparaging remarks about other countries, no suggestions for Americans to be disarmed or anything besides observations of a country i lived in before and after 1996.
You're right to say our philosophy on guns is different. I am a product of my environment, my upbringing and my experience - as are you.
I don't need to get into abstract discussion of the meaning of 'rights' to know that's what i believe - i am happy for governments to restrict deadly weapons. You're welcome to disagree.
I don't think people 'need' deadly weapons that kill from afar, so i'm not bothered by that 'right' being enshrined in my country's law.
However, i am heartened that difficult issues can be overcome here, debated passionately - sometimes resulting in positive change.
For example, Australia was one of the first nations to define its drug policy as a "harm reduction" strategy.
For all of our draconian drug laws, this was a really positice and progressive thing in its time. Who on bluelight could disagree with that?
Obviously it did not end the so-called war on drugs; but it was a step in the right direction, long since eclipsed by many, many other countries. But i digress.
Australia, like the USA, is a young nation. We will keep moving foward, i hope.