Yes, it does. And when you're given an example of a ban which has no apparent benefit OR cost, the answer is always to NOT inhibit the rights and freedoms of the people, not to limit them regardless when there is no benefit to doing so.
Nations which DO AND DON'T have strict gun laws have crime rates below those of the United States, for various reasons which have nothing to do with gun laws.
Actually the nation which I obviously wish to emulate is Switzerland (which you're still steadily ignoring), because they have the LOWEST crime rate in the world and they maintain their freedom to defend themselves, their families and their nation. My argument included the United States because after all but one passed concealed carry laws, the crime rate didn't increase as predicted, which made them a fitting example of the notion that concealed carry doesn't increase crime. What's not logical about that? It doesn't mean I want Canada to copy the United States justice system.
An assumption based on nothing is worth nothing, and on what are you basing your assumption that limiting law-abiding citizen's access to firearms is somehow going to decrease violent crime? You're ignoring the rationale that criminals DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW. If you make a law against guns, they don't follow it because breaking laws is what they do. Disarming potential victims only makes things easier for criminals. What do you think would happen tomorrow if every store clerk in the United States was forced to give up their weapon? Well, I assume you'd see a lot more store robberies, based on the theory that people don't like getting shot.
I could argue, but why should I bother? Your insistance on this point has no bearing on the debate. How is inhibiting someone from taking a gun outside of their home stopping them from shooting themselves in the head?
Yes they have, as this GIF from wiki shows. Some have been in place for longer than 20 years, the majority for about seventeen years (which kind of IS close to 20 years, in case you failed grade two math).
American gun laws previous to concealed carry were comperable to those which Canada currently has, they really aren't very strict. We can have guns in our houses (some of which don't require any sort of registration) and in our cars, my dad trudges his through the woods. You're arguing that if gun laws become more relaxed in Canada the crime rate will climb, and there's an example in existance which shows that it didn't do so in a nation with a very similar culture, a very close demographic and similar gun laws. Tell me how that's irrelevant. The fact that the United States had a comparably high crime rate and still has a comparably high crime rate is irrelevant: what matters is the degree of change (CHANGE! That's what matters when you're analyzing data, the dependant variable in relation to the independant) what matters is whether or not there's a noticable change in crime rate (dependant) with a change in the law (independant). The gun laws in America have become much more lax since the early 90's (a significant degree of change), yet crime did not increase.
And if you still disagree and insist that all of this is "inconclusive," then I refer you to my first point at the top of this post.
Actually I have answered it, just a few hours ago. Ironically, you fail at reading comprehension.
The rate of crime doesn't matter and shouldn't influence a decision on this issue, which I've said several times now:
Actually I've said that gun laws have nothing to do with the crime rate, several times. Criminals will commit crimes, they're criminals. The fact that Canada is more stable than the United States is due to many factors, but gun laws have never been successfully correlated to crime rates in any capacity, and if banning guns doesn't make people more safe then guns shouldn't be banned and people should have the legal right to make the concious decision to fight back against assailants.
Really? A nation in which 420,000 homes contain assault rifles would be helpless if ever a WWII-like event were to occur again? I fail to see the logic behind that. And you're saying that fearing a potentially tyranical government in times of future economic and social upheaval is "paranoia?" There are still people alive today who were forced into concentration camps during WWII and into labor camps during the Cold War. Even if resistance did fail, I'd rather have a chance of protecting myself, my family, my property and my nation than to just say "oh, alright" and go along with it. Your whole "resistance is futile" attitide is more than a little sad.
****, my loose tongue is always my undoing, and not just on litnet. I knew you were pushing me so that I'd say something back in order to get the thread closed or nail some IP to me (or to have an excuse to stop posting, *ahem*), and yet I did anyway (so congratulations, I guess). I should have used the word jerk, or even "disrespectful" to be on the uber safe side. My point (which you ignored, as you often do) would have been maintained and I wouldn't have gotten too close to forum rules - although, I should point out that I didn't call you anything but rather that I said you are "acting" like a dick and detracting from the topic, which you are.
So if any mods are watching: um... sorry. Again.