So you accept gun-murders because "death happens anyway in one form or another"?
No, I accept guns because they stop
a lot of murders. As pointed out above, with guns we have about a fourth of Russia's homicide rate, almost none of which involves a gun.
As the number of guns in the US has soared, along with concealed carry permit holders, the murder rate has plunged. It's not how many guns you have, it's who has those guns. In Mexico, though guns are generally legal, there is only one
gun store for the entire nation and gun ownership is relatively rare. Yet Chihuahua's homicide rate is 111 per 100,000, which is just about off the charts.
The US is not like the UK, full of lords in tweed jackets, who, by the way, are now the most violent nation in Europe, and whose rate of violent crime vastly exceeds the US. We will not become like Sweden if you outlaw guns. We're more likely to become a nation of illegal guns with murder rates somewhere between Ukraine and Chihuahua's.
All but one public mass shooting since 1950, where four or more people have been killed, have occured in a gun-free zone. All we're doing is making hunting parks. The average number of people killed in mass public shootings that are ended by police intervension is 14. The average number of people killed when an armed citizen intervenes is 2.5, because when an armed citizen stops it, it means the armed citizen was already at the scene.
In Mumbai India, with incredibly strict gun laws and virtually no firearms culture, eleven young men killed 166 and wounded over 300, holding the city essentially hostage for three days
. They even went shooting past a police station, which just locked its gates. In theory, India should be a gun-free utopia. In reality, more Indians than Americans are murdered every year (though their per-capita rate is lower), and they have to worry about being taken over for days by a dozen young guys in sport shirts and slacks who apparently had fewer guns than I used to own.