First off, I'm going to make the assumption that all these statistics are true and accurate. For my point, it isn't necessary to point out the obvious flaw to this websites statement(but I will): "Worldwide, the majority of recent shooting massacres have been committed with legally-held weapons." Yes, corrupt governments use the guise of legality to massacre people with guns. This statement doesn't give credibility to the idea that the majority of gun-related homicides are committed with legal firearms.
If one were to overlay the figure on the left with amount of civil liberties individuals have in the respective countries most of us would smile and be comfortable with what's portrayed. If "non-gun related homicide and suicide rates" were overlayed, we wouldn't be shocked in the slightest.
A gun control advocate views things fairly narrowly; get rid of guns and we reduce gun crime, End of Story. Narrowly speaking this is true, but let's expand this to encompass the bigger picture. Mandating a firearms surrender is mandating a civil liberties surrender. It translates into less individual freedom and more government freedom. The gun control debate is the debate between Freedom and Safety.
Freedom is the ability to choose what to purchase and where to live for himself. Safety is having those choices restricted from himself. A slave is totally restricted in his choices, therefor totally safe from himself. When one looks at it that way the debate is between making choices or letting others choose. Between being an individual or being a slave.
A gun-control advocate would say that I am making too great a leap saying that by conceding my firearm I become a slave. Let me say that it isn't too great a leap. A concession in part is a concession in full. An individual liberty is all individual liberties, you assault one and you assault them all. You let one go, you are giving permission to let all go.
