The same thing?  I didn't write a paper in order to sway people to one side or the other.  That paragraph ends with the implied conclusion that violent crime is the same in the US and Japan.  You really think the writer was trying to do otherwise?

Edit: OK, now that's what you're doing.  Obviously I'm refering to different sections, such as where it lists the top 10 most violent nations along with a strawman about the US having the worst crime in the world.  Has anyone ever suggested that we're worse than Russia or Mexico?

Of course not. But you often see people making the claim that a) banning guns will reduce murder rates, and b) banning guns will reduce suicide, and Japan is frequently used as an example of a low-gun-society.

The fact is that the USA has a higher rate of violence without guns, and Japan still has a very high suicide rate without guns.

As for the edit: well, I wasn't sure. Seems as if you're only jumping to random pages (that, or you're reading the whole thing, and so far have only found two issues worth pointing out, and using to dismiss the whole document). People will read through this thread without clicking the link. They see you write "compare to poverty stricken countries" and think that you're talking about the whole document... when it's like, what, one graph and 10 words out of 100 pages?

Get rid of guns and crime rate - even murder goes up?

If this is true, and it seems to be, than every media outlet should be talking about it.
I am thinking about getting gun - and I hate guns. maybe a shotgun.

Mr Khan said:

Whatever happened to this murderer?

I believe this was an 'at work violence' and not a terrorist attack.

I only skimmed it and immediately found sections that I did not like.  My point is that we're talking about a complex issue; little "fact" sheets, from either side, leave out context and large amounts of important information, as well as any information that does not fit their agenda.  That makes this kind of thing nearly useless.  Many of the tricks are well known, such comparing crime in the US to Russia or Mexico, where conditions are much different.

It's like people who point to Texas and say that crime went down after they allowed people to carry concealed weapons.  They present this as proof that more guns means less violence.  What they fail to say, however, is that crime went down all over the country during that same period because there was a push for much tougher laws and longer prison terms.  The murder rate went down in places that DID NOT loosen gun laws.  Do you see my point?  Tidbits of information, especially tailored information, are useless for drawing intelligent conclusions.  Comparing and contrasting other countries without examining all factors makes no sense.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that mass gun bans aren't feasible in the United States but I still hate to see strawman arguments and bad logic used as propaganda.

Mr Khan said:

It's obvious by you posting this photo that you haven't been an a non war zone military base. Where no one but an MA or MP will be armed. They will be posted at designated areas with one or two driving around base. The shooter could have choose a spot to give him self the most time to pull of his crime.  If it had been a war zone military base he would have been put down once the first person was shot or even when he first pulled the gun.

Fun fact, I've stayed more than 3 month in Israel last year. They don't have shootings like this. Wanna know why? Because guns are every where. They are on the streets, out side your hotel, out side your restaurant, out side of our work  and yes in the schools.

Except... military personal aren't allowed to have guns on military bases.(outside security personel)  Were they allowed to keep their pistols however... probably a different story.

Additionally, one could look at a spree shootings that were stopped by guns. 

Examples by way of The Atlantic.

"In 1997, a disturbed high-school student named Luke Woodham stabbed his mother and then shot and killed two people at Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He then began driving toward a nearby junior high to continue his shooting spree, but the assistant principal of the high school, Joel Myrick, aimed a pistol he kept in his truck at Woodham, causing him to veer off the road. Myrick then put his pistol to Woodham’s neck and disarmed him. On January 16, 2002, a disgruntled former student at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia, had killed three people, including the school’s dean, when two students, both off-duty law-enforcement officers, retrieved their weapons and pointed them at the shooter, who ended his killing spree and surrendered. In December 2007, a man armed with a semiautomatic rifle and two pistols entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and killed two teenage girls before a church member, Jeanne Assam—a former Minneapolis police officer and a volunteer church security guard—shot and wounded the gunman, who then killed himself."

Mr Khan said:

umm... you a military base is not loaded with guns, soldiers arent allowed to carry guns, MPs dont even carry a round in the chamber, and therefore cannot draw and fire, and criminals always have the drop on them. Soldiers are prohibited from carrying loaded weapons on post. Which means, you are assering a position, pretending to know something you dont, when I tell you from experience what i am asserting and is FACT in this post in response to your rediculous photo above. Military posts/bases/installations are travelled by people who arent allowed to carry weapons, even though we they are trained in them. They are completely defenseless, our service members lost fellow brothers and sisters in arms over this, and you are haughty and arrogant to use it to grandstand your position assuming you know something, which in fact you dont. That is deceptive on your part, and an insult to those who lost their lives. Get off the banning guns and thinking you know things/facts you dont. You opinions are way off base, and completely void of fact and knowledge. 

killerzX said: Mr Khan said: umm... you a military base is not loaded with guns, soldiers arent allowed to carry guns, MPs dont even carry a round in the chamber, and therefore cannot draw and fire, and criminals always have the drop on them. Soldiers are prohibited from carrying loaded weapons on post. Which means, you are assering a position, pretending to know something you dont, when I tell you from experience what i am asserting and is FACT in this post in response to your rediculous photo above. Military posts/bases/installations are travelled by people who arent allowed to carry weapons, even though we they are trained in them. They are completely defenseless, our service members lost fellow brothers and sisters in arms over this, and you are haughty and arrogant to use it to grandstand your position assuming you know something, which in fact you dont. That is deceptive on your part, and an insult to those who lost their lives. Get off the banning guns and thinking you know things/facts you dont. You opinions are way off base, and completely void of fact and knowledge.

I forgot that MP aren't allowed to carry a round in the chamber. I once had a buddy that got deranked because he lost one bulit. Yes just dropped one some where. That's how serious they are about it.

Mmmfishtacos said: Mr Khan said: It's obvious by you posting this photo that you haven't been an a non war zone military base. Where no one but an MA or MP will be armed. They will be posted at designated areas with one or two driving around base. The shooter could have choose a spot to give him self the most time to pull of his crime.  If it had been a war zone military base he would have been put down once the first person was shot or even when he first pulled the gun. Fun fact, I've stayed more than 3 month in Israel last year. They don't have shootings like this. Wanna know why? Because guns are every where. They are on the streets, out side your hotel, out side your restaurant, out side of our work  and yes in the schools.

Israel also routinely commits war crimes. Not the best example.