Because the part I left in was really the only pertinent part
No the rest of my quote was important too. I talk about why small firearms, ie handguns with barrel lengths under 12 inches and overall lengths under 24 inches should be allowed. They're a very good weapon for self defense at the home and one of the best weapons for self defense away from home, when you're on the street or otherwise out and about.
That's not the effect, the effect is the number of mass shootings and gun deaths/injuries
So the laws in Canada that prohibit mass shootings and gun deaths work well but the laws that control who can have what guns and under what conditions do not since many of the guns in Canada are owned illegally, they're just not used in mass shootings or other types of gun deaths.
Sorry that's as stupid a comment as you've ever typed
No its not, especially considering the fact that some of the mass shootings are done by leftist gun banners.
You dodged the question though, is it true that you find levels of US mass shootings "unacceptable" ?
I already answered that, as I said before the only level of mass shootings I would find in the US to be acceptable is zero, anything over that is too much.
So you don't know if the UK murder rate was rising or if the 1997 gun ban made gun deaths rise or fall
According to the data the murder rate in the UK was rising during the ban and continued to rise after the ban and in 1998 it was higher than before the ban was enacted. It stayed at that level until 2002 where it rose again and reached an all-time high. One thing is for sure, the ban did not make the murder rate fall. Im talking about overall murder rate not murders specifically done with guns. Murder is murder whether its done with a gun or something else.
You made a positive claim
You have the burden of proof
And I presented evidence as explained above.
And there are many crimes
The UK and Australian gun bans came in as a response to mass shootings not overall crime levels
Did you not know that - did you think they were introduced to reduce overall crime rates ?
Im interested in reducing murder rates overall, that includes but certainly is not limited to murders from mass shootings.
They were legally purchased and owned guns.
Adam Lanza didn't legally purchase them or legally own them.
Proving that just because YOU might be a model citizen, that still doesn't mean your guns won't be misused
I keep my guns properly secured.
Some of the links you provided talk about mass killings in general, not killings done with guns. In the second to last link of yours the first killing it talks about is a killing done with an axe not a gun. As for your links that specifically talk about mass shootings in the USA many of them happen in parts of the country that have some of the strictest gun control. States such as New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California. There are very few, if any mass shootings in states such as West Virginia, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Wyoming, the Dakotas, states that are among the most gun friendly. Interestingly enough, none of the links you provided mention any mass shootings in Alaska, a state that has been pointed out on this forum as a very violent state with a high murder rate. So the evidence you present suggests that most of the murders in Alaska aren't done with guns.
