Gun ownership and homicide rates do in fact correlate in a manner that supports a significant contribution to causation particularly when comparing at the state level.
It’s not surprising to see these same sham articles parroted every time this topic is discussed; but it is disheartening that like others making these arguments you can’t perceive any scenario besides homicide that deserves consideration.
Guns aren’t just used for homicides. The majority of firearm deaths each year are suicides. Firearms access increases the odds of a suicide three fold, 85% of suicide attempts with a firearm are successful compared to only a 5% success rate among the other most widely used methods.
Additionally the presence of firearms in a home strongly correlates with other domestic violence which does not result in a death. Although it’s worth noting that a woman is five times more likely to be murdered when her abuser has access to a firearm.
Gun laws and licensing regulations don’t exist just to reduce homicides. In responsible states, thoughtful legislators consider all the implications and risks a firearm adds to a community when someone is allowed to own one, as well as when someone who currently owns one should possibly have it removed.
There are many resources and actual peer reviewed science and data to support all of these unfortunate statistics but my takeaway from this thread and the responses I’ve received is that most people are uninterested in learning more about a topic they purport to care about, and are more interested in making bad faith arguments that make the silent majority of responsible gun owners look like a bunch of gun crazy fanatics.
If I’ve misjudged you personally on this point let me know and I’d be happy to share citations for any details you’re curious about.