> Getting rid of guns is not going to solve violent people.

I do not understand this "the proposed solution is either a panacea of don't bother" attitude to major problems in society. The whole point of guns is to make it extremely easy and simple to apply lethal force instantly from a distance onto multiple targets and without any chance of defense. Don't you think that taking that away from practically all attackers improves everyone's chances of surviving an attack?

The 'proposed solution's tramples on a fundamentally more important right.

Why do you feel that the right to own a gun is "fundamentally more important" than the right to live your life without the risk of being gunned down?

Because all life has risk, and the purpose of government is not to eliminate all risk to life. Such a government would be immensely awful.

Gun ownership, self defense, and most importantly, the maintenance of real armed power in the population at large discourages a worse outcome, than the loss of any particular life.

That isn't the argument here. The argument is that giving people guns is not going to solve violent people.

I think that the downvotes are because it's pretty disingenuous to remove criminals and poor people from US statistics, before comparing with other nations.

Like, I imagine that my country would the greenest & cleanest in the world, if we would get to disregard all factory and car emissions, from our stats.

And I'd be rightly downvoted for making that claim.

In the same vein, adding more guns to the equation isn't going to solve violence/crime either