It’s true. Very many people killed by a gun would not probably not have been killed if the killer hadn’t had a gun. It’s really sad that those people were killed, and I wish it hadn’t happened.
I do respect the impulse to take lessons from other societies, but there are very very many differences between American society and others. To pick one policy difference and decide that this is the key determining factor is kinda cargo cult-y, and honestly seems like motivated reasoning. For example, I could cite the difference between protection of free speech in the US vs. our “peer nations”, and claim that this is the key factor driving the difference in murders. In fact, many conservatives try to do exactly that, and it’s just as arbitrary.
I can’t prove my point, but you cannot prove yours either. The common response is an appeal to common sense, which says “Gun used in murder. If no gun, no murder. It just makes sense!” But I think this “common sense” is more of an anti-intellectual slogan, not an inherently obvious truth. It is manufactured by politicians for purposes of rallying voters. I could just as easily say “Poverty causes murder. If no poverty, no murder. It just makes sense!” Only difference is that my common sense isn’t played on repeat every time someone is killed.
All I can speak to on the question of proof is my own experiences, which is that when I see cops decide whether to abuse folks in my neighborhood, they are always performing a calculus of safety. If they think they could be hurt or killed, they often decline to act, or wait for backup, or try to get a warrant. I have personally seen situations where the existence of a crowd of people (inherent subtext: a crowd of people, any of whom who might be armed) is enough to dissuade a cop from abusing someone, or to stop mid-abuse. I have seen situations where a resident doesn’t want to let the police into their home, and the possibility that the resident could be armed means the police have to involve their supervisors rather than barging in. In short, sometimes nothing is restraining a cop other than concern for his own safety.
The existence - or possibility of - guns doesn’t magically solve these situations, but it does play a role. These situations would absolutely have gone down worse if civilians were known to be disarmed. Because I have seen this directly it seems like common sense to me, and makes me suspicious of any position which doesn’t recognize this reality.
