[SlowRobotAhead]

Except that there is no correlation to gun ownership and crime.

We know the places that have more guns don’t have more crime, we can’t call correlation to that, but we do know adding guns doesn’t increase crime - because that’s been true since the high crime peak of the early 1990s where crime has been falling with guns skyrocketing.

It’s painfully childish to claim that it’s some surprise that where guns are that there is more gun-crime. Something can’t be abused where it doesn’t exist - the joke is that people look at gun-crime compared to overall crime.

Rape rates in Australia are 40-45% higher than the USA. If you’re a rapist, it’s much safer to “work” in Oz, does the rapist getting shot in the USA contribute to “gun-crime”? On paper, yes.

[yequalsx]

Adding guns probably doesn’t increase crime rate. It does the mass murder rate. It is precisely gun crime that I abhor. Thus I'm opposed to their availability.

[SlowRobotAhead]

Can't wait for the citation from an actual study (try the CDC, they've put out at least 3 since 2013)!

You should be able to easily show that rural USA with it's murder rate on part with Europe is definitely not the place where all our guns are... oh wait...

[yequalsx]

I don’t understand your sarcasm. I agreed with you that the crime rate has not gone up due to an increase in gun ownership. But guns in their current form certainly increase the lethality of those with bad intent. This isn’t deniable.

My claim is that the mass murder rate, the rate at which we have mass killings in the U.S. would go down if buying/selling guns were illegal.