The issue though with saying that is that you make the assumption that not having access to a firearm would change the ultimate outcome. In Japan nearly all suicides occur by hanging and they have double the normal suicide rate of the US. Does that mean they should implement rope control? The fact is, it wouldn't make a difference whether they use a knife, jump off of a tall building, or use a firearm, the result is that they wanted to end their life, as tragic as that is.

Well the UKs violent crime statistics do show that there are more than 4 times as much violent crime and 3 times as many violent offenders in the UK than in the US. (That's over 2,000 violent crimes per 100,000 citizens as compared to the USs 466 per 100,000) the UKs issues with violent crime are worse than any other EU country. The murder rate is also the highest in the entire EU, with many other countries having far more lax firearms laws. your correlation to "No Firearms" is really invalid, and I'm not even bringing up the Swiss case example.

Japan's social issues resulting in loss of life is more tied to suicide. Japan has a suicide rate of nearly double the US, infact it is so bad that there were over a thousand more suicides in Japan than ALL firearms related deaths in the US despite only have a population 40% the size. (32,845 suicides in japan vs 31,347 firearms related deaths [Total US suicides: 32,559]) so saying japan is devoid of social issues resulting in death is disingenuous. It is different than the issues in the US, but just as bad, if not worse.

Also I would also like ot point out that it is still legal to own firearms in both of these countries though it is much more restricted.

Well actually home invasions have been on the rise in upper class suburban areas for the last decade. Apparently robbing the poor isn't very profitable, so the criminals go where the money is. The fact is that a pretty upper class town in my local area has had 5 home invasions since September and several victims have been killed.

Sadly my neighbor a few years ago was nearly killed in a similar incident. He was stabbed numerous times even after he was tied up, blindfolded, gagged, and beaten numerous times for "not telling them where the valuables were." You are free to keep living in your fairy tale land where bad things don't happen, but please don't remove my means of defense simply because nothing bad has ever happened to you.

http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/8d55e96aa3124d178ecefc2f33637580/IN--Home-Invasion-Fears/#.Un0aUPnkvsg

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/Double-Shooting-One-Person-Dead-Another-Injured-230483191.html

http://www.wthr.com/story/21649826/police-investigate-homicide-on-indys-northwest-side

http://www.wthr.com/story/18309693/fishers-police-seek-suspect-in-home-invasion-burglary

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB119508694182293480

I know, I wasn't going to bring that up as the standards and qualifications for the police are abysmal and usually not NEARLY as stringent as civilian standards. (depends on state and locality a lot) But most people don't want to know that or will refuse to believe it. Still, it isn't exactly an uncommon occurrence, and I'd prefer more rather than less.

Yeah, surprisingly to most people, people that are shot and it isnt a direct CNS shot, means they are usually still an effective threat. Now add in stress from the situation, moving targets, moving while shooting, and the possibility of multiple threats, a standard capacity magazine (depending on firearm, that could mean anywhere between 6-40 rounds) doesn't last as long as you may think or may need. Many times the police have shot criminals 10+ times and still not incapacitated them.

When seconds matter, the police are minutes away.

Well, not exactly. It protects against many more threats than just criminals with firearms. It protects against anyone that seeks to do substantial physical harm to you or your family regardless of their means (aka baseball bats, lead pipe, brass knuckles, etc.)

As for the last assumption, you are most likely referring to the Kellermann report which stated that a firearm in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance. That report has been debunked many times as it specifically excluded most accounts of self defense and included suicides and even police actions against criminals in the statistics. And of course these are all statistics 30 years out of date, where the murder rate of US citizens has steadily declined to less than half of what it was in 1986. (despite what the media portrays)

Whoopsie. Got a little post happy and didn't proofread.

Doesnt matter, I own both Copyrights

I can now copywrite my grocery list? Sweet!

Um, actually there are quite a few pistols designed for hunting. Many large caliber revolvers and thompson contenders.

Someone who actually looked at numbers? I'm sorry I am going to have to ask you to leave as reason and logic is not allowed here on slashdot.

What about self defense? That's a pretty good application as well, though for that application I DO want a gun that is good at killing people.

You sir, deserve far more than just 5 karma points for your post.

[Citation Needed]

Just because you can get elected, does not mean you are smart. At all.