And guess what? We are perfectly fine with that. Now show me that having 9 guns for every 10 Americans is needed to defend their livestock, or that 5-year old kids need their rifles to protect their pet hamsters from wolves, and you might have a point. Otherwise, you are just grasping at straws. And missing them.
What would it matter if we had ten guns per American, or a hundred? The people with lots of guns (I used to own thirty or so) commit probably 0.1% of the crime. Many of the states with ridiculously high rates of gun ownership, like Wyoming, have lower homicide rates than England or Italy. Places where they're banned, like Chicago and DC, might as well be a Yugoslavian war zone.
If high rates of gun possession caused
crime, wouldn't soldiers and police make up 90% of the prison population?
I think is unfair to compare a small, mainly rural state to the whole of Britain.
Also it would seem that you are taking Wyoming's lowest figure and using it as the 'murder rate'. Because of its small population Wyoming murder rate can flutuate greatly year from year.
Number of murders in Wyoming since 2000
2000 - 12
2001 - 9
2002 - 15
2004 - 11
2005 - 14
2006 - 9
2007 - 16
2008 - 12
2009 - 11
2010 - 8
2011 - 18
When Wyoming's number of murders is in single digits - Yes, it is below the British murder rate. However in those years when it is 14+ the murder rate is considerable higher that Britain's.
Tasmania has a population slghtly smaller than Wyoming's (though our capital is twice the size of Wyoming's largest city) and the number of murders in year in Tasmania since 2000 has ranged from 3 to 11 so sometimes there has been a three times increase in the murder rate from year to year (we tend to average around 8 murders a year).
Going on the above figures Wyoming has averaged about 12 murders a year since 2000 which means it has an average murder rate of over 2.0 per 100,000 which is actually higher than Britain's murder rate.