The UK's gun murder rate went up when they restricted guns. London had a vastly lower murder rate than New York when New York had restrictive gun laws and London did not.
Why would gun restrictions would result in the UK's homicide rate instead of Mexico's, which also has tight gun laws and a homicde rate four times higher than the US, since unlike the UK but like Mexico, we also have large criminal gangs?
Why should states like Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire, where gun laws basically just ban carrying a pistol in a courthouse, and which already have a lower homicide rate than the UK, change?
Wouldn't it make more sense to mimic gun laws of North Dakota, Minnesota, or Idaho, which have a fourth the average US homicide rate, instead of copying the gun laws of DC, which has a homicide rate six times higher than the US average?
Russia hasn't allowed civilian gun ownership since the 1920's and has twice our murder rate. France lets anyone own pistols and has a fraction of our murder rate.
Western Europe's gun laws vary widely, as does their rate of gun ownership, yet their homicide rates hardly differ, and the small variation there is contradicts the idea that less guns reduces homicides. Much of the world that has even more restrictive gun laws than Europe has homicide rates twenty times higher.
Even in the US, you can break homicides down demographically and see order of magnitude differences in homicide rates between groups when their access to guns is exactly the same. For example, American women own guns about 80 percent as often as men, yet their intentional homicide rate with firearms is a tenth that of males, so why would we disarm them?
Essentially, trying to reduce the homicide rate by adjusting a variable that either doesn't appear in the equation for homicide rates, or has a small negative coefficient if it does, isn't going to do much of anything. Yesterday Pew released a poll of the American public, who said that gun restrictions would be the second most useless way to prevent tragedies like Newton, right behind forbidding news outlets from mentioning the name of the shooter.
So hypothetically if guns were totally banned in the US, that would be a useless way to minimise a tragedy like newton happing again?
Logic alone says that's not true.
And if you are going to quote an article please link to it. Instead of picking up the facts that support your viewpoint
And I'm assuming this is the article in question.
Picking up a few points from it :-
49% say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 42% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns.
42% strongly believe it is more important to control gun ownership, while 37% strongly feel it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Dec. 17-19 among 1,219 adults, finds a higher percentage saying that gun ownership in this country does more to protect people from crime (48%) than to put their safety at risk (37%).
However, about two-thirds (65%) think that allowing citizens to own assault weapons makes the country more dangerous. Just 21% say that permitting these types of weapons makes the country safer.
There is widespread public opposition to a ban on handguns: Two-thirds (67%) oppose banning the possession of handguns, except by law enforcement officers. Far more favor banning bullets designed to explode or penetrate bullet-proof vests (56%) and high capacity ammunition clips (53%). Opinion is divided over whether to ban semi-automatic guns – 44% favor such a ban, while 49% are opposed.
Women prioritize controlling ownership over gun rights by a 24-point margin, while men prioritize gun rights by a 10-point margin. Racial differences also are striking, as African-Americans overwhelmingly say gun control is more important than gun rights (68% to 24%), while opinion among whites tilts in favor of gun rights (51% to 42%).
Young people (18-29 year olds) continue to support gun control over gun rights (55% vs. 36%), while those 30-64 are more divided on the question. Notably, older Americans (ages 65+) have shifted over the last several months; today they prioritize gun control over gun rights (54% vs. 34%), but were more divided earlier in the year.
* * *
I could continue to paste segments from the article, but if you want to know more.
SO it appears that :-
a.>The majority of Americans favour Gun Control of some sort
b.>The Majority of Americans Favour a ban on Assult Rifles
c.>Women and Ethnic Groups support Gun Control, white men favour gun rights.
d.>In The Article Democrats favour Gun Control, whilst Republicans favour Gun Rights, Independants are more or less split (Read the article)
e.>Younger and older people favour Gun Control, whilst other age group is split.
f.>A majority of Americans thinks gun ownership helps protect people from crime.