The people do matter the most when it comes to preventing gunviolence, true. But not giving them fucking guns so freely in the first place also helps lowering the casualtyrate. In the shittiest parts of UK with also varing demographics, gangs solve their desputes with knifes and mug people with knifes, making the overall bystandercasualtyrate so much smaller. Sure theres gunviolence occasionally, but its definately not so serius.
I dont seriuslly see how is this so fucking trivial. Less guns = less gunviolence. If your state has a high crimerate and also liberal gunlaws its catastrophic, but if the crime-rate is low there is no problem. Guns dont create crime, I never claimed that, but if its combined with crime, the innocent bystandercasualtyrate is high as fuck. Its the same reason why not all countries are allowed to own nukes for their own "defence". Less nukes around, less likely a bunch of people who shouldn't, die quickly at once because of some retard. Let the warlords shoot each-other with AK-s and leave everyone else out of this. And gunlaws are not fucking magic. No wounder banning them in some states in US didn't do anything. There's so much in circulation its already too late. The most one can do now is that other countries learn from the US, why such liberal gun-laws are a bad idea and not have them. And i think they have, in majority of Europe providing that "freedom" hasn't even been thrown in the discussiontabel. Nobody wants it.
And the general cars argument thrown by gunnuts is not valid. A car has fuckton more value in general than a gun. Guncollecting and outside the range shooting(or masturbating to your guns) is leisure. Driving a car for some people is litterally the only way they can live their life more efficiently.
