To the gun nuts here

the only good country which banned guns is Japan.

Its a bit silly to believe government will stop with banning stuff after it bans guns.

First it bans guns. then it bans speech, then it bans social media, then it bans smoking, then it bans opinions, then it bans debates, then it bans food, then it bans movement, then it forces vaccinations, then it spies on you, then it starts managing your private life, and soon, the only thing you are allowed to do is what government tells you to. It just happens gradually so population doesnt notice the great increase of government control over time.

Guns are always there to defend rights. You cant defend rights without guns, there is no logical option to defend rights without guns. If you cant defend rights with force, you lose them quickly.

So yeah, while guns may be having many bad effects, their main role is to prevent domino effect which happened in almost all countries which went on "Oh lets ban stuff" path.

A Japan-style gun ban would work in America only if America radically transforms itself into a homogenous society like Japan currently is, where nobody questions the intent of another random person or their culture.

where there is more gun control, there is less murder. this is the scientific consensus, as shown with the literature review

I wish you'd been more specific here. There are different policies that all fall under "gun control," and they don't all have similar effectiveness. For example, background checks have more evidence supporting them than assault weapon bans. I know you kind of address this later, but you only do so in regard to mass shootings, which are a small percentage of all gun deaths. They're also rare events statistically, which makes them harder to study.

Is this a manifesto?

Your OP suggests anyone who disagrees with you is a "gun-nut."

You are basically begging people who disagree to define you as a "gun-ban-nut" instead of listening.

This is just going to drown out any logical data or arguments.

As a manifesto, this can work.

As a discussion, it's DOA.

https://guneducationalinformation.weebly.com/

Here is the truth about gun control. Please educate yourself.

I know its not laid out in simple soundbytes, but it takes a lot to unpacked the stubborn warped ideas of you and your ilk.

Great article, the gun fetishists will say the solution to all of those issues is more guns.

OK, I've read both your source material [https://guneducationalinformation.weebly.com/] and theirs, and come away with major flaws: first, the root definition of a "gun." Sounds simplistic, but the fact is, gun bans in the US do a terrible job of defining what "guns" are being banned by law. "Assault weapon" is a useless term, because it, on its own, is poorly defined, Gun restrictions need to specify maker and model type and numeric, at least. Few gun bans do this adequately. There is no definition of what the @$$$%@#$ "assault weapon" means, specifically.

Additionally, these "studies" [they're really just surveys, and statistical surveys are fraught with built-in error just by poorly structured questions, often intended purposefully to guide the sampling population to a desired response, because most "surveys" do not have a truly unbiased purpose. Therefore, how questions are worded often pre-selects a desired answer, Not the way to run this particular railroad. Further, there are margin of error [moe] limits that, if exceeded, result in inaccurate results. Any moe in excess of ±2.5% [most exceed 3%] is already suspect.

I was a certified SSBB, so I lived and breathed statistical design of experiments over my career, and have seen virtually every error that can be made in statistical sampling and analysis. These studies on gun control are victim to these errors. Worse, most studies like this start from the idiocy that the gun can shoot itself; they do not take into consideration the percentage of gun users [a high percentage] who are practical, safe, and undistracted users of these tools who also use safe practices in storage so others in a household cannot access them and actually be in the direction and range when the gun fires itself. Finally, the biggest failure of any statutory effort that aims at human behavioral control will never be 100% successful. In the case of gun control, since guns tend to not fire themselves, to expect that users of guns will always be compliant with the law is an idiotic expectation, period. That's true of any ban of anything, not just guns.

Finally, tell me what other country that these studies have included are as populated as the U.S.? Only two countries, neither of which may have been involved in the studies, are as populated as the U.S., China and India. Both countries virtually disallow the sale of guns to their citizens. Any gun. So, unless the studies develop a per capita analysis relative to populations, the data is going to be skewed.

So, is the article you posted really "the truth?" Statistically, I'd say... not.

Yes, at least there is more chance of someone taking a pot shot at an establishment figure.

Though they just need to adjust their sights and practice a bit more.

Japan has the fewest guns per capita...yet...

Yep, like I said establishment figures will undoubtedly be targeted.

Though violence related gun deaths in the US totalled 14651 in 2025.

Gun suicides up to 28000.

Whereas Japan experiences approximately 15 gun related deaths per annum, violent and suicidal.

Guns are essentially a killing tool...And it is estimated that there are as many as 500 million privately owned and largely unmonitored guns in the US...Such is human evolution to an advanced state of civility and intellect.

.

The above simply showed that gun bans might have made sense 40 years ago. Not in these times with this technology. Traditional guns are bordering on being obsolete. But political policies are usually 40 years or more behind the technology. Even the founding fathers couldn't foresee that problem.

That's true, who'd have thought that the horses would be replaced by EV's.

Nonetheless a gun is still essentially just high velocity projectiles initiated by an explosive charge.

Phasers not yet widely available.

Setting phasers to stun is surely the way forwards...Effective but not deadly.

Here is the truth about gun control. Please educate yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhI8o9m7BK0