I guess you have reading problems
Have you read this 700 page doctorate level harvard study that completely disagrees with you?
it includes every major gun study conducted in the last 100 years and goes back as far as the middle ages
There is also the charts from 40+ studies in the 700 pages in there, they almost all universally disagree with your premise that guns = more death.
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf
"Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases."
"There is no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, resulting in more or less the same amount of death. Elementary as this point is, proponents of the more guns equal more death mantra seem oblivious to it. One study asserts that Americans are more likely to be shot to death than people in the world's other wealthier nations. While this is literally true, it is irrelevant-except, perhaps to people terrified not of death per se but just death by gunshot. A fact that should be of greater concern-but which the study fails to mention-is that per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent."
The "more guns equal more death" mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly involve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________
This should end this debate FOREVER
Macro-historical Evidence:
From the Middle Ages to the 20th Century The Middle Ages were a time of notoriously brutal and endemic warfare. They also
experienced rates of ordinary murder almost double the highest recorded U.S. murder rate. But Middle Age homicide "cannot be explained in terms of the availability of firearms, which had not yet been invented."The invention provides some test of the mantra.
If it is true that more guns equal more murder and fewer guns equal less death, murder should have risen with the invention, increased efficiency, and greater availability of firearms across the population. Yet, using England as an example, murder rates seem to have fallen sharply as guns became progressively more efficient and widely owned during the five centuries after the invention of firearms.During much of this period, because the entire adult male population of England was deemed to constitute a militia, every military age male was required to possess arms for use in militia training and service.
