Countries with much tighter gun regulations than the US don't outlaw guns. They also don't prevent 100% gun violence. They just have less of it. A LOT less.
So "Regulation of guns would absolutely help nothing" is just plain false. It would help some, as the numbers clearly state. It would not prevent everything, but that's not the same as it would "help nothing".
Can we conclude now that plural of anecdote is not data, or do you have any actual data that shows banning lawful citizens from possessing means of self defense actually prevents violent crime?
As you point out, Switzerland has an overall rate of violence that is quite low, for example slightly lower than that of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...).
However, surprise, surprise, it has a "firearm-related" violence level that is 3x that of Germany, and more than 8x the gun-related homicides. Could that have anything to do with the fact that the Swiss have their Army rifles at home?
How again does Switzerland demonstrate that higher gun ownership does not correlate with higher gun mortalities?
And you say "the plural of anecdote is not data", when just before you used a single incident to "demonstrate" that tighter gun control doesn't work. Huh?
Or is this the old straw-man of "if we cannot eliminate gun violence completely, we shouldn't do anything?" Reduction is a good target.
And no, we do not need double-blind controlled experiments to (a) change regulations that affect lives and (b) actually have those regulations have a measurable positive impact.
Aviation regulations are often changed because of single incidents, when careful analysis of the factors that led to the incident leads experts in the field to the conclusion that making the change could prevent that accident.
Take the awful accident that happened in Tenerife (largest civil aviation disaster ever): one of the contributing factors was that one of the pilots heard "take-off" from ATC and thought he was cleared for take-off, when he had been told to stand by for take-off clearance.
Nowadays, the words "take-off" have been eliminated from pilot/ATC communications except for the phrase "you are cleared for take-off".
They didn't wait to have a statistically valid sample of horrendous air-crashes to make this change, a single incident and its subsequent analysis was sufficient. It is this sort of careful analysis and action that has made air-travel as ridiculously safe as it is (in fact so safe that statistical analysis is nigh impossible these days...that's a good thing).
What you are saying is that if the firearms are available, some of them will be used for violence. If not, the same (actually, slightly higher) level of violence will be achieved by other means. And you think this proves your point that guns lead to violence. I see.
>>> And you say "the plural of anecdote is not data", when just before you used a single incident to "demonstrate" that tighter gun control doesn't work. Huh?
I did it to demonstrate that on each anecdote another anecdote can be found. I hoped, after my explanation, and specifically stating "plural of anecdote is not data", it would be clear that I do not consider it to be data. I was wrong. Sorry I wasn't clear - I meant that bringing anecdotes does not constitute data.
>>> Aviation regulations are often changed because of single incidents, when careful analysis of the factors that led to the incident leads experts in the field to the conclusion that making the change could prevent that accident.
It would be smarter to think what could prevent the next accident, but who I am to give advice to experts? After all, those are probably the same experts that make men dressed in uniforms grab my balls and feel my ass each time I fly, for the benefit of my security of course. Nobody can argue with this level of expertise.
Meanwhile, back to our topic - you completely ignored the fact that places with complete gun bans still have very violent and very gun-related crime aplenty. Right here in the US. "Murder capital" of the US is the same place that had gun laws so strict SCOTUS had to rule they are unconstitutional.
No, I am saying that greater availability of firearms is correlated with greater number of deaths caused by guns. Lower availability of firearms is correlated with lower number of deaths by guns. Not the same thing.
"If not, the same (actually, slightly higher) level of violence will be achieved by other means."
No. A country that is otherwise much more peaceful and has less crime (Switzerland) has many more gun-related deaths and also has more guns available than another (Germany, UK).
"It would be smarter to think what could prevent the next accident, but who I am to give advice to experts? After all, those are probably the same experts that make men dressed in uniforms grab my balls and feel my ass each time I fly, for the benefit of my security of course. Nobody can argue with this level of expertise."
Nope, not at all the same experts. You are talking about the TSA, I am talking about the FAA, NTSB and related. I am certain they would appreciate your thoughtful input.
"Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. "
So the other things that are claimed as "the root cause" here aren't even correlated...yet somehow the one thing that does correlate closely...
"Gun death" is a very suspect term. If you equate some fool shooting himself while trying to repeat what Bruce Willis did on TV, actual violent homicide crime and potential rape victim shooting the attacker, and add there policemen shooting suspects (which they can do at smallest provocation) - you get quite a wrong picture. I wonder also how places like Chicago - where they had mafia-initiated gun bans - fared in this paper. I also find it very suspect that poverty level, etc. did not have correlation - do they want to tell me Chicago ghetto and some rich millionaire neighborhood in non-gun-control state have same level of crimes with use of guns? Very hard to believe without seeing the actual authenticated data.