"As I expected, no answers to the two simple questions I put, just more obfuscation and Whataboutery"

Seems like proving you wrong just gets me ignored. Why bother replying to anything you say if you ignore what I post?

--------
The countries that have been most successful at limiting private, legal gun ownership are 1. Ethiopia, 2. Eritrea, 3. Haiti, 4. North Korea, and 5. Rwanda. Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Haiti all have higher murder rates than that of the United States. North Korea and Rwanda have slightly lower murder rates (4.4 and 4.5 per 100,000 respectively versus the United States at 4.88).

Let’s look at the countries with the highest concentrations of gun ownership (excluding Yemen and Iraq as active war zones). Guns per murder in those countries are,

    United States at 20,967,
    Uruguay at 3,777,
    Norway at 55,893,
    France at 19,747,
    Austria at 59,608,
    Germany at 35,647,
    Switzerland at 35,435,
    New Zealand at 24,835, and
    Greece at 26,471.

Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

When one excludes Iraq and Yemen, not one of the countries on the list of the 10 highest rates of gun ownership also appears on the list of the top ten highest murder rates. In fact, the countries with the highest murder rates have markedly low gun ownership rates.

    El Savador (108.64 murders per 100,000/5800 guns per 100,000)
    Honduras (63.75/6200)
    Venezuela (57.15/10,700)
    Jamaica (43.21/8,100)
    Lesotho (38/2,700)
    Belize (34.4/10,000)
    South Africa (34.27/12,700)
    Guatemala (31.21/13,100)
    Trinidad (30.88/1,600)
    Bahamas (29.81/5,300)

It really doesn’t matter how you slice this data. The conclusion is inescapable: High concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders. Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude the opposite: Higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates. ------------


To repeat:Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

So the UK is obviously filled with murderous killers ( 20 times as many murders per gun owned.) It is now up to you to explain this- are UK citizens really such lawless murderers?

The POINT is that
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The conclusion is inescapable: High concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders. Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude the opposite: Higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


"if, as you propose, fewer guns in circulation and strict controls would result in more shooting-deaths, please explain why the UK, with strict gun-controls, has <100 shooting-deaths per annum (<1 per 650k head of population), yet the US has 30,000 per annum (1 per 12k head of population) - a death-rate in the US which is 54 times greater than in the UK. "

1. The UK is filled with murderers who like to get blood on their hands by using knives?
2. The UK is NOT the US, and has a more homogeneous culture. The increasing murder rate there may be due to the culture becoming more mixed. Is that what you want to say? You prefer having a WASP only society? Mixing of ANY cultures, even racially similar ones, is a cause of societal friction.


FACT: Norway disproves your point- unless there is some reason that with 1/10 the guns, the UK has twice the murder rate of Norway. yet you do not consider other reasons for the US, so I will NOT allow you to claim other reasons for the UK.

The UK is just filled with a bunch of bloody murderers.