I've grown tired of trying to talk sense into you; I might as well be beating a dead horse expecting it to get up and move. You've proven that the British don't believe in logic and don't care to.

Gun control isn't about saving lives and reducing crime, that's not what it was designed to do. The biggest names in gun control support have come out and said that gun control is about getting the people of America used to the idea of a total and absolute gun ban. And since you said you'd rather listen to those who wrote the proposals and argued them out, then that means you have to trust them in what they said.

You can't ever use gun control in one country to suggest that it works or would work in another country, because it doesn't transfer over. You have to look at the entire culture, not just the laws. You have to check minority ratios, drugs, violence, family status, employment, social makeup, political stance, etc. for every single area. You can't just say "well this area has widespread legal gun ownership and doesn't restrict the types of arms that a person can own so obviously they have more gun violence for this reason" because it doesn't work like that.

You've proven that you don't read my posts, because I provided evidence to prove that Japan isn't one of the so called "other developed nations with lower gun crime than in America" because everything points otherwise. If you read my post and visited the link you would've seen the various sources cited and the evidence presented to show that the Japanese not only control guns, they also control every single aspect of life and keep close tabs on everybody; right down to their sexual preferences. The police have unlimited power and may do whatever they wish.

The laws on life are so strict that Japan, in comparison, makes Britain look like America when it comes to rights and freedom. But since you chose to ignore the evidence I provided, you wouldn't know this.

There's not study and no proof to support the notion that the legal availability of guns plays any part in the rates of crime and murder in any particular area. There's no proof that bans on "assault weapons", or one-gun-a-month laws, or denying of concealed carry permits, or ballistics fingerprinting or firearms microstamping, does any good when it comes to preventing crimes or saving lives, because no such proof exists and never will. All we have is anti-gun rhetoric and askewed statistics that are slanted purely to the left side.

The burden of proof is not on me to prove that I'm right. The burden of proof is on you to prove I'm wrong.
"the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." Warren vs. The District of Columbia.