I'm sorry, what I was trying to say was it'd be enlightening to see a news article (links?) on someone killed by a gun to correlate truth to anything with those stats or the implied representation anyway.

Also it looks like you created a throwaway to say this. It says a lot about your conviction on what you're saying.

You know you can find data supporting whatever you want, or at least casting doubts on whatever you don't like.

This does not mean data is irrelevant, but it is quite important to know who collected it, following what procedure, and with what goal in mind. Not sure that study above is the most unbiased, for instance.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... can't find data for other periods it's a really warren of twisty passages when one seeks out stats without a thorough knowledge of an area.

Come and try the UK for a bit. People do not have guns.

If you like, take the time to go through the data and understand why it does not actually fit the reality of the situation here. Don't expect other people to disprove shit data.

Come and try the US for a bit. People have guns, most likely you won't have troubles with anything at all, and you'll have a great time.