After the tragic incident in the US where 59 people where killed and hundreds wounded, it is repugnant to see the exploitation of a tragedy, to advance a collectivist effort in implementing new ways to regulate and disarm law-abiding individuals by employing emotional appeal immediately after.
Those that do an effort to use logic and reason with the same motive could be drawing this card.
The problem with this statistics is that it shows gun deaths rather than gun murders. So whats the difference?
Well, in gun deaths suicides are included. So how much might this affect the total numbers?
I'll take Norway as an example.
Norway is a country with a lot of guns per inhabbitant. We are almost 5 million living here, and we have 1,3 milion registered guns and fairly free gun legislation, as of yet. Still it's just 2-4 gun murders a year, not including the one incident where a guy went on a mass-shooting on an island where they held a socialistic youth camp in 2011 (which by the way most likely would have had a better outcome or maybe not happened at all if they did have guns on that island). On the other hand, we do have between 5 and 600 suicieds each year. It's not known have many of these that are done by using a gun, but it's pretty clear that one could really skyrocket the gun deaths numbers by adding some from the suicide numbers.
In other words, self-inflicted deaths carried out with rope, razor blades and paracetamol in areas with few firearms are included in that statistics. When it comes to violence with guns, murder, there are statistics from all over the world, not just the United States, which shows that the stricter regulations, the more gun murder and violence. Norway has relatively free weapons legislation and the figures here are well-matched with other countries. Switzerland is one of the countries with the most weapons per capita, yet they are very low on the list of killing with firearms. The point is that criminals always get a weapon if they want it. So such regulations affect law-abiding citizens, which is not the purpose of such regulations.
The fact is that in areas where there is little likelihood that proper people own firearms, there is almost nothing to fear by conducting a criminal act involving violence or threats of violence.
In addition, you have the principles and the history here. Everyone should be able to protect themselves from abuse, both internal and external. And history shows that there is also a need to protect oneself from their own government. There were more killed by their own government in the last century than it was deaths in World War II. Still we acctually has political parties in Norway with the same ideology most of these governments held.
