1. These are criminals who shot across a street at each other. Normal Teenagers don't have shootouts with each other, these are gang members. The waste happened long before they started shooting at each other.
2. If one of my kids was killed by stray gunfire I would be angry at the person who shot them, not at the weapon manufacturer or gun store. Similarly, if one of my kids was killed by a drunk driver, I would be angry at the drunk driver, not the liquor store/bar they bought alcohol from, the manufacturer of the vehicle they drove, or the drink maker.
3. My rights are not contingent on the behavior of bad actors. My right to be secure in my person is not limited because criminals hide behind that security, and neither should my right to bear arms, or my right to a jury trial, or my right to not be compelled to incriminate myself, or my right to vote.This is completely non-factual. Per the CDC (https://wonder.cdc.gov/) in 2021 there were the following numbers of firearms-related homicides:



Here's the same data for black males only:



Statistically speaking, the number one cause of death in persons under the age of 20 is probably young black males shooting each other. (Despite being under 7% of the population) Unless his daughter is a young black male, she really isn't.

By the way, the following information from the "all Americans" chart is completely unsurprising:

1. 2798 out of 3072 firearms homicide victims (91%) under 20 were aged 13-19
2. The average homicides per year of age is 21 from birth through age 12 in a country with 338 million people of whom 52 million are kids 12 and under, and falls within 5 deaths of the average through age 12.

"kids" aren't dying to gun violence in the US, but a lot of teenagers are. Since it's illegal for teenagers to carry guns, or buy handguns until aged 21, this is obviously a crime problem.

Maybe importing tens of millions of people across the border, not punishing criminals, and being in the middle of a ******** epidemic is a bad way to run the country?

Here are your numbers for 2019 by the way:

The UK's homicide rate is wildly higher than those of the Czech Republic, Switzerland, or Austria, which have much more widespread gun ownership than the UK. (and which allow for ownership of semi-auto mag fed centerfire rifles and pistols, unlike the UK.)

THIS is why a Misc....

We also have states where 50% of people have guns and there are lower homicide rates than the UK.

The point is there are outlier data points. (that happens) but what you are trying to model is (how much does a change in stat A (Gun ownership) explain the change in state B (Homicide rate). The more data points of like populations the better you get.

In this case we see that there are negative numbers within the confidence interval meaning that you can not state there is a correlation between gun ownership percentage and homicide rates (or violent crimes).

Because of this gun grabbers like to shift the narrative and use "Gun Crime" or "Gun Deaths". Both of which are correlated with gun ownership percentage. However, that is just measuring the likelihood of a tool being used not the likelihood of the event happening.

Gun Deaths specifically is sneaky because over 50% of gun deaths are suicides. It turns out for minors only 32% of gun deaths are suicides, but that also makes guns no longer the number 1 killer of kids under 20, ruining their talking point. Also notice how they used 20 years old in the stat. This is largely because they needed the older teen gang bangers to make the stat factually true.

Not to say gun groups don't also manipulate the data. They often use Guns per Capita vs Homicide rate. However, because the average gun owner owns 3.2 guns (last I checked) this artificially creates a negative correlation between guns per capita and homicide rate. As they say "guns don't kill people... People kill people" which is true. So number of guns is irrelevant, gun owners needs to be metric.

"Assault Rifles" also have no correlation between homicide rates.