Just to clarify, among the 38,000 gun-related deaths, about two thirds are suicides. So it's not technically about killing "another" human being.
Yes, I was just using "worst case scenario" statistics to show that even when portrayed in its absolute worst light, gun violence still isn't the epidemic the gun control advocates claim it to be.
We could say the same about road vehicles or airplane trafic. That doesn't mean that enhancing security shouldn't be done, even if that means heavier controls.
Sure, but that's not specifically what I'm arguing against with this current line of discussion. What I'm arguing against is the fearmongering being used by gun control advocates when they describe gun violence as an "epidemic" or as a "crisis". Statistically, it is neither one of those things, but gun control advocates have to try to make it seem like it is, otherwise no one would even give them the time of day in this debate.
Here is a graph comparing the number of homicides per year in the US with the cumulated one in the 5 largest EU countries (Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain)
I've already explained why comparing data between countries is irrelevant to the specific debate about gun control in the US. The claims being made by gun control advocates in the US make that data irrelevant since their claims mostly revolve specifically around the crime rate here in the US.
Here's a graph that proves that indeed, the more there are guns legally owned in a US state, the highest will be its gun-related death toll.
Okay. That just makes sense. More guns, means increased chance for gun violence. I don't think anyone seriously argues against that point. Overall though, gun violence is on the decline, and has been for some time now. As you state, there has been a recent spike in it, but that has happened occasionally since the steady decline started in 1990 so we'll have to wait and see if this is a real increase or just a small statistical aberration before it continues to decline again.
And if we look more closely at the Australian case, they did limit gun access in 1996
After looking it up, I wouldn't necessarily say they limited gun ownership, just kept better tabs on those that did own guns. After looking up the numbers and doing some quick math (mans can never be hot) there are an estimated 5.7 million gun owners in Australia which is about 24% of the population. So proportionally, gun ownership in Australia really isn't that much lower than in the US. In fact, in my searching I found several articles that say gun ownership in Australia is actually on the rise again, yet violence remains low.
Perhaps that may point to gun access not being the problem, but rather some cultural or societal difference between the US and Australia that leads to our higher rate of gun violence.
Registered ownership. If you want to sell your registered property you are responsible for the buyer being properly registered as the new owner themselves. If your registered property does any harm you are legally liable for the damage. If vetting someone to be a legal buyer takes a while and you are desperate to sell right now, too bad, go whine, or go sell to someone else who has been vetted. License to purchase or own subject to regular renewal, with repeat vetting. Every weapon documented to the registered owner through a modern database rather than the current pen, paper, and file cabinet system.
If that's really what you want to see, I have no disagreement with this. The only thing I probably wouldn't like about it is the inevitable fees that would come with such a registration process. That's not too big of a deal though as I'd treat that fee like I treat my car registration fee: something I roll my eyes at, but still do because I see the need for it. Registration of weapons has never been something I have contested. It's only outright bans and confiscations that don't sit well with me.