I have never been able to get an answer from these type of people. They say things like this:
As for Australia, a study from Oxford University Press states: “Despite reports of a crime wave in Australia following recent restrictions on the private ownership of firearms, evidence actually shows sweeping reductions in gun-related death, injury, and crime.” (Small Arms Survey 2004 Yearbook, June 2004)
The results in Australia are important because more than 700,000 guns were removed from the community (the equivalent figure in the USA would be 40 million guns). No other nation had ever attempted anything on this scale. In the country’s leading newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, the question was asked, “So, ten years later, can we see a difference?” The answer was resoundingly, yes. The results are in: Australia’s tightened gun controls have been followed by remarkable reductions in gun deaths.
It is true that in an area that arouses such passions as gun control, statistics are a minefield because of the difficulty in comparing like with like. But in all the stuff that came my way as a result of what I wrote, one point stood out: “Stick to apples and apples: real gun violence versus real gun violence.
It just doesn’t seem to matter to them that the violent crime rate can go up as long as the crime rate where guns were used goes down. A million people a month could be killed with machetes because their guns were taken away from them (Rwanda) and that’s better than if a few people were killed with guns.
These people have mental problems.