While the data might be cherry picked, one thing that can't be displayed here is motivation. In Canada, a decent number of people have guns, but you can't carry firearms with you, you have to take highly specific routes while transporting any restricted hand guns. The role of guns is sport shooting and hunting and it's highly regulated for those.

In the USA, guns are intended to be used to kill other civilians. Owning a gun for self-defense purposes is buying with the intention that you may one day use it to kill another human. Not an enemy combatant in war, but a fellow citizen with a gun.

It's only a feeling, but I feel like that might be the biggest distinction between the USA and other (omitted) high-gun-per-capita countries. Guns in the USA aren't for mitary drafting or protection against a national invasion.

There's also the matter of training and licensing. A buddy in the USA was staunchly opposed to gun licensing. When I said that in Canada, it just helps ensure that people know how to maintain their gun and use it safely, he said, "Well the people who don't take the time to learn how to maintain it and use it safely just shouldn't get it in the first place", which I'm sure is a popular enough sentiment, but it's also the argument for licensing. The zero barrier for entry approach is also a problem.

I'd love to see more nuanced stats than this 4-panel comic is presenting.

It should be noted that this chart compares gun homicides to gun ownership, which... of course those will correlate

If we plotted kangaroo injuries vs kangaroos per capita, we'd see a similar outlier in Australia

It would be more useful to see gun ownership compared to total homicides, to see if an overabundance of guns correlates with more murders. Even then, though, a correlation between the two might not be casual in that direction. It may instead be that in areas with a high homicide rate, people are more likely to own a firearm for defense.

What you would need to prove is that places with high gun ownership have significantly higher homicide rates, but places with high homicide rates don't have significantly higher rates of gun ownership

Finally, proof that homicides cause gun ownership

Fucking liberals. It's a graph showing "gun deaths" which you're conflating with "murders." Which is intentional; you're being deceived, and propagating the deception.

Here's a simple breakdown from an anarchist responding to this standard milquetoast liberal argument a few years ago:

Guns are not correlated to violence, inequality is.

And according to the defensive gun use (DGU) data The Violence Policy center (which is extremely anti-gun fyi) gives the low range estimates at ~67,000 DGUs per year. Consider this the extreme low:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

FYI most estimates put it far higher, including the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

So how about guns killing? Statistics show only .0005% of gun owners commit a gun related crime. Best estimates put gun ownership at 37% in America, and that was in 2013, the number today is estimated to be closer to 45% but lets go with the smaller number to do the math conservatively. So America has population of 318 million people. So the number of gun owners is 318,000,000 x .37 = 117,660,000 Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/ So we have ~117,660,000 gun owners. What is the latest FBI statistic on violent crime? FBI database shows ~11,000 fatal gun crimes a year. The study linked in the OP including suicides is beyond BS. So 117,660,000 / 11,000= .0000934897 = 99.99065% But there is a problem with this number, it doesn't take into account illegal gun ownership and assumes the legal gun owners are the ones causing all the crime. This source shows 90% of homicides involved illegally bought or sold guns, or owners who where previously felons: Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html So for fun lets re-run the numbers to differentiate between criminals and non criminals. Since a felony record disbars you from legally owning a firearm, yet 90% of murders are committed by those with felony records, we know only 10% of murders are committed by legal gun owners. So we have ~11,000 murders, ten percent of which are committed by previously law abiding gun owners. So that is 1,100 murders. So we have 117,660,000 law abiding gun owners commenting 1,100 murders, which comes out to 99.999065% So yes 99.999065% of Legal gun never murder someone. Only .000045% of them become murders. So as you can see, the stats clearly show that guns do not increase the likelihood of violent crime, or cause anyone to be less safe, quite the opposite as the DGU data shows.

So using the high estimates for gun violence, and the low estimates for DGUs, DGUs outnumber use of a legally held weapon in a deadly violence by ~60 times.

Also: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F13504851.2013.854294 & http://cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsnewscom-staff/more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013

&

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

&

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

&

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/01/using_placebo_l.html

&

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2014/09/05/places_with_more_guns_dont_have_more_homicide_1064.html

&

https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/2#2

You are just wrong in every way it is possible to be wrong. If you want an even more simple summary, the "moar guns moar death" BS is just hilariously wrong on the face of it. According to the Washington Post, civilian firearms ownership has increased from ~240 million (1996) to ~357 million (2013) (For reference to the figures below, it shows about 325 million guns in 2010). According to Pew Research, the firearms homicide death rate fell from ~6 per 100,000 persons (1996) to 3.6 per 100,000 (2010). So according to these figures, between 1996 and 2010, the number of civilian firearms increased by ~35%. Over the same time period, firearms homicide deaths decreased by ~40%. If you want to focus on ccw specifically, fine that shows the same thing. Rather do murder per 100,000 globally? Sure thing. And that is where you get your GINI connect fyi. The correlation is a lot stronger than gun ownership. This has been looked at and somehow keeps getting forgotten. You don't pick up a gun to hurt someone because it is your first choice, you generally do it because it is your last. Inequality, desperation, the effects of capitalism in the third world and increasingly the first, drastically increase this.

Real anarchists know this, and know that anything attempt to restrict the rights of the proles is class war.

"i mean, you don't really think a popular army could challenge the authority of any sovereign great power state like US or China do you???"

I'm sorry but if you think this, you simply do not understand military conflict in the 21st century or historically. Allow me to give you a few examples that will quickly show you the reality of the situation ( which is that the U.S. military stands no chance what-so-ever against even a moderate proportion of the population rising en-mass).

Iraq and Afghanistan: In over 10 years resistance has never been stamped out, in countries with much smaller populations than ours (both <1/10th), despite our massive technological advantages. This is with significant infighting in both countries.

Vietnam: A country of less than 1/10th our population was subjected too more bombing than was used in all of WWII and began the conflict less well armed than the US public is now. We lost handily.

There are countless more examples from all across the globe (From Russia to Nicaragua, From Columbia to Kurdistan, etc.) that unequivocally show armed populations can crush organized militaries, or at the very least resist them effectively for extended periods of time.

This is not even count the even more obvious problem with your statements: Almost 100 million Americans are armed (the number of which would likely grow in this event) armed with over 300,000,000 guns including almost 500,000 machine guns (although to be fair most are sub-machine guns). You'd have to do this with a combined army and police force (including reserves) of a little over 2million (with no desertion or refusal of orders). Mass defection and resistance from within the military and police would be very common. These US soldiers have families and friends in the civilian world, and many (like the oathkeepers) are dedicated to NOT engaging those targets with violence. There would be massive resistance in the ranks, it would be at best chaos. However even if this were NOT the case (which it is) and it was an army of automatons, the sheer number of armed citizens would be so overwhelming as for it not to matter much. That's not to say any conflict wouldn't be a BRUTAL and costly affair, but with enough participants from the public the conclusion would be forgone.

An armed proletariat obviously helps to balance the power equation between the public and those in power, to the point that exploitation beyond a certain point and conflict becomes EXTREMELY unattractive to those in power. In a similar manner to nuclear weapons an armed populace acts as a DETERRENT to elite exploitation and violence. In other words this conflict (that the people would likely win all things considered) isn't likely to occur and for good reason. Those in power squeeze any opportunity to do so as much as they possibly can, and if you give an inch, they take a mile. I wish it wasn't so but that is just the way they operate. In addition, taking away weapons from the population while leaving them in the hands of the government of almost ANY kind of weapon (AR to SAW to whatever) is a horrible idea, given that the government has proven they are far less responsible than it's citizens. My entire post gives all the reasons why removing power from citizens and giving it to those in power is a horrific idea with terrible historic consequences.

All revolutions historically had bloodshed, and those in power do not give it up without a fight.

where is switzerland? on the chart, this often gets touted as the counterpoint

I'm not a republican, but I don't think anyone is saying gun crime doesn't happen.

It's easy to say that banning guns = no more gun violence. But the devil is in the details. Given the U.S.A's history with guns, banning them will have consequences. Not can, will.

Let's not forget that a gun ban will only affect law abiding citizens.

The US seems to be a huge outlier on both axes. You would have to exclude it to make any sense of the data.

Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated

Children getting shot up at school is just a way of life we all have to accept according to American leadership.