I think the whole point of that was just to show removing guns we would still have a high murder rate. In fact most of the gun murders would be replace with another weapon of choice. If someone wants to kill someone they are going to do it. If someone want to commit suicide they are going to do. Gun or not.

This then plays into the anti-gun argument, however. If removing guns wouldn't change the big problems, then we should remove guns, because at least there would be less deaths by accident and self-defense.

This then plays into the anti-gun argument, however. If removing guns wouldn't change the big problems, then we should remove guns, because at least there would be less deaths by accident and self-defense.

Pokoko already pointed out one of the piss-weak arguments in it, where it tries to "debunk" how Japan has a rock-bottom gun ownership rate and rock-bottom violent crime rate, by somehow equating suicide with murder

Other problems

The graph on page 6 generally shows a positive correlation between lower gun ownership rates and lower crime rates. America has the higest violent crime rate and highest gun ownership rate, and the only outlier here, for whatever reason, is Scotland. Everything else mirrors

They state that Switzerland has the same per-capita violent crime rate as England, and this is supposed to be a positive point in favor of Switzerland's high gun ownership rate (especially when gun nuts love to point at England and show how poor and helpless all those people are).

3: Correlation is not causation. They point to the year of the UK gun ban, but fail to address the possible effect of the recent immigration spike.

At best, all it does is prove that there isn't a positive correlation between violent crime and gun ownership

I don't see how this playing in the the anit-gun argument. People are going to kill no matter what. At least the person trying to defend them selfs has a better shot with a gun than a knife. Accidental gun death is so low it's not worth worry about. The only way it would work is to disarm everyone one. Including the police and how do you suppose we do that? There are 12 guns to every man woman and child in the united states. Good luck with that.

So what else should we remove? Knives, cars, gas and fertilizers, bats and Nails, 100 prof alcohol and rags?

It's the curse of liberalism, i'm afraid. I believe that humanity can better itself from the caveman mentality that everyone from outside my cave is out to beat and kill the people in my cave.

I outlined my alternative once before. A "no-fault" period for turning in all guns, and following that, mandatory jail terms if you're caught with a gun: 10 years and $10,000. Per gun.

No, you believe that there are Top Men who can force us all to act like better people than we really are. That isn't liberal at all. I do hope the left's trend away from the word "liberal" and towards the more appropriately pious and sanctimonious "progressive" continues, because as a liberal, it's a word I'd like back.

and SamualRSmith and I have already debunked his claim. and if you were to read or understand anything you disagree with, you would know this already. this fact sheet did not equate murder and suicide, if you were to read it you would know this.

Also no America does not have the highest violent crime rate. not even close. making things up again, are we?

and the point of this fact sheet which you have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of what it says, does not only correlate gun ownership with crime. it does point out though that banning guns =/= equal lower crime. and more guns=/= higher crime. stat after stat after stat proves this

I think the whole point of that was just to show removing guns we would still have a high murder rate. In fact most of the gun murders would be replace with another weapon of choice. If someone wants to kill someone they are going to do it. If someone want to commit suicide they are going to do. Gun or not.