incorrect. if this is a bad person problem and guns dont make the situation worse, there should be wildly out of control non-gun murder rates too. you are correct, that it's technically possible that people are just choosing to use guns, and by some coincidence, non-gun murders are normal here... but that's counterintuitive and would be a fluke of science.
I'm not saying that it is a good thing that bad people have guns. If bad people didn't have guns, that would be optimal. But that doesn't mean that taking away guns from responsible, good people is optimal. Clearly, the best option is to give good people a means to defend themselves (especially smaller and weaker people who otherwise couldn't. Hence the name of an old Wild West revolver being the "great equalizer".)
princplles of science dont just change, unless there's a reason for it. if more guns means more murder fifteen years ago, we have no reason to assume things are different. it's not just this study either, look at the opening post... police are more likely to die with gun around as are women, and so many other metrics. you and your loved ones are more likley do die if you have a gun, that sorta stuff. if there was just one study we might consider it could be flawed, the implications. but look at the totality of the science out there.
what i have on my side of the argument is the totality of the sicnece. i also have common sense. i defy you to argue from common sense that everyone carrying around guns wouldn't cause the murder rate to sky rocket.
It is not very scientific though. "
Blumstein & Wallman (2006) conclude that a complex interaction between "prisons, drugs, guns, policing, economics," and "demography, including abortion" is the best explanation for the crime drop in the United States". From the 1960s to the 1990s, just about all Wealthy Western nations experienced a rise in crime and then a decrease and nobody knows why the heck that even happened. So, to just pretend that prevalence of guns is the only thing, or even the main thing, driving homicides is naive at best.
That study points to half a dozen different factors impacting crime rates. Are guns to some degree related? Perhaps, as they theorize. But do police prevalence, demographics, poverty, and plenty of other things? Yes, to a much larger degree.
I pointed out that the largest gun-owning group, Whites, have a tiny homicide rate, less than many wealthy European countries. So, I don't understand why you are so dead set on blaming guns when clearly other factors are much more important to address. Our homicide rate is incredibly skewed by other demographics that own less guns and it would be disingenuous for you to ignore that. If poverty is causing that disparity, do what you can to alleviate poverty. If culture is the cause, do what you can about that. But don't pretend that a tool is the cause of our problems.
And if you want a "common sense argument", how about this: if you know that there is a high likelihood that someone is armed and could kill you, are you more likely or less likely to pick a fight with them or try to mug them? Probably lower because you don't want to die. But if they are very likely unarmed because of a gun ban, you would feel less apprehension about insulting, robbing, or punching them?
Therefore, the common sense is: "an armed society is a polite society". By "common sense" (aka a quite worthless waste of time based on reasoning that likely doesn't apply to the real world), other types of crimes would be lower because of the prevalence of guns among regular citizens.
(Just like how other countries having nukes decreases the likelihood of you using a nuke.)
