"If gun ownership caused an increase in violence and harm ..." is an irrelevant and meaningless false premise. Whether or not violence might increase correlated with gun ownership, the "ownership" could not be a "cause". The cause is always why they are used, which may or may not be a serious problem to be dealt with, but not justifying gun confiscation from the innocent. When you say "even if ...", the "if" must be meaningful.

I was not implying that increased gun ownership increases violence. I have my weapon to prevent several serious crimes. I was saying even if it did it still does not justify the government being the only armed entity.

I suspect the correlation would be even more stark if you looked at urban/rural vs. voting vs. respect for gun rights. States with large urban populations went strongly for Clinton and are more restrictive of gun rights. In urban environments, neighbors and police are closer, so people feel less need for a gun. (Note: I'm not validating the "what do you need that gun for" argument, but just speculating on people's motivations.)

If we could somehow makes the rules customized by city or neighborhood, the whole debate would be moot. Most of the country by area would recognize gun rights.

Here's is a 5-year-old post with four charts, but they're worth looking at. The text about responding to the latest freak mass shooting does not feel dated.
https://zachmortensen.net/2013/01/10/...

I like the comment that says "There are 100 million gun owners in the U.S., possessing 300 million guns and 12 trillion rounds of ammunition. If we were the problem, I think you'd know about it."

Gun ownership does not cause an increase in violence. If violence increases it shows a need for gun ownership for self-defense, but not by whim. The use of force to protect the rights of the individual must be under objective control, delegated but not surrendered to government. When violence increases it means a failure of government to perform its primary function. A propensity for increase in violence may be due to a surge in criminal activity or it may be due to a more general breakdown in civilized behavior. Either way, self defense is a moral requirement. But the last thing we need is more people running around in a fad to shoot it up in the name of self defense.

You won't hear this reported anywhere but you sure can do a little research and find it is factual.
99% of all the mass shooting have been committed by self proclaimed registered Democrats! This is living proof that liberalism is a mental disease worthy of restricting gun ownership.

In North Dakota, where I spent 30 years from 1955 on, everyone had guns...EVERYONE! And most people didn't even bother to lock up the weapon or their house for that matter. If anyone was killed during that time, I don't remember. My guess is that little has changed....

Don't blame you. Don't blame me. Blame the gun behind the tree....and, of course, any people that disagree....

The first chart says it all.

Horizontal axis changes scale on last chart.

The charts definitely DO need some explanation. Otherwise we are no better off than the people who decry that half the children are below average.

If gun ownership caused an increase in violence and harm it still would not be a reason to forbid the ownership of guns. The number of homicides going up or down is small compared to the number of homicides committed by governments once the ownership of weapons is denied to the populace.
Prior to the invention of guns the state would outlaw the ownership of swords or bows with the same effect. People were enslaved more easily and murdered at precipitously higher rates when access to weapons was denied to all those who disagreed with the state.

Libs call people names for posts like this.

Vertical axis units missing from the first chart. Maybe I'm tired this Friday, but I didn't see it...

The 2nd chart is interesting to me.
Those states resisting gun ownership and controlling access to guns are clearly the most obvious supporters of Hitlery for president and the source of her narrow popular majority.