Show the evidence you have that it is causative rather than correlative.
>Generally, less guns = less gun death. Which might seem like such a simple understanding that it must be naive or stupid. But no, it's actually just that simple.
It does not assert what you've claimed. It found correlative association. They did not conclude that the gun was causative of the homicide.
Even thinking this through for a second, it makes sense someone expecting to be murdered by a family member or intimate partner might be more likely to keep a gun, as it might be useful in frustrating that effort.
I think it's just plainly true that guns cause gun homicide and obviously having more guns means more gun homicide. And suicide. And other stuff, too, like kids shooting themselves in the face on accident. Surprisingly common, which is why you probably should not have a gun in your home with children.
Look, it's just a simple matter of probability and being honest about the world. Bad things, like robberies, are very, very, very rare. Heat of the moment disagreements and accidents are not.
You're optimizing for something that you know, deep down, does not matter - and to do it, you're actively making a bunch of MUCH MORE LIKELY stuff easier. And even here I am being far too charitable to you - I'm assuming the gun would help you in the case a crime is committed. It probably won't, especially if you follow safe gun keeping guidelines.
>Generally, less guns = less gun death. Which might seem like such a simple understanding that it must be naive or stupid. But no, it's actually just that simple.
It's really not, in many cases it's been found anti-correlative i.e. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/guns4.jpg