|
I'm with Mike on this one 100%. At worst the figures were misleading - but nonetheless what he says is accurate. The reduction he says happened. Yes, there was already a downward trend that he doesn't mention, but the figures are still accurate. Moreover, even if you take into account the downward trend, the reduction in violence is still extremely significant and there has not been an equivalent rise in violence elsewhere. Thus, the streets are safer, crime is down, and the savings to the economy are massive - sounds like a good initiative to me.
Personally, I feel like alcohol is the Australian version of guns in America (albeit admittedly not nearly as serious). We find it ridiculous that in America they won't even put restrictions on guns because the gun lobby and gun owners don't want to relinquish their rights.
And yet in Australia, alcohol abuse, alcohol related violence and alcohol related accidents cost our country billions of dollars and does indeed cost many lives. Like with guns, it is clearly only the abuse of alcohol that is the issue rather than alcohol itself (I personally love a drink). And yet as soon as we try to put restrictions in place to curb the problem, everyone cries on about "nanny states", about how it is costing jobs, about individual freedoms. This is exactly what is said in the gun debate in America.
I feel that if people want to come down against Baird on this using the above rhetoric yet want to come down on America for guns, they're hypocrites.
|