Originally Posted by Mach

OK, I'll give it a once over for how reasonable it is.



That's false to begin with, many crimes are comitted with guns, wanting them to be independant of one another is just words or wishful thinking. Guns are a tool, and a good tool to committ certain crimes with, which is why we have gun crimes to begin with.


That cannot be true, if one knows all relevant data, it can be statistically compared and described, with the appropriate caveats and margins of error. I think what you may mean is that most of the general published data is not sufficient to fairly compare the U.S. to other nations in terms of gun control.
That's possibly true (I haven't researched it but I have seen this stated a number of places). But please, make the distinction!


Why does Japan do OK with the most stringent gun control laws? Apparently there are other factors involved that can contradict that.


Your conclusion is NOT logical. You note that it must NOT logically depend on the availability of guns, this is false. However, you may correctly claim it does not ONLY depend on the availability of guns, a much weaker, but correct, argument.



You seem to be missing the actual point here.
If you give a tool that can be used to defend against, or commit crimes, among other things, to a population that does not committ crimes, and therefore has little need to defend against said crimes, *Why would you think adding guns would increase crime rate?*

If you take a less stable population that participates in a lot more crime, and you give them guns, you will expect to see more guns used in crimes, necessarily, and more fatalities as a result. This starts an arms race, now to defend against a crime you need a gun, since people comitting crimes have guns widely available.



This is entirely irrelevant to the argument. Lots of people die of Cancer. And...and nothing. It's irrelevant too.

-Mach