Too be more precise, total felonious homicides should be discussed. A person murdered with a rock is just as dead as one murdered with a firearm. A felonious homicide may be prevented with a firearm as well as committed with one.
Therefore, if firearms numbers are decreased, and felonious homicides with firearms go down, but total felonious homicides go up, you have not gained anything.
Similarly if felonious homicides with firearms go up and overall felonious homicides go down, you still have gained.
What we are seeing in the U.S. is total felonious homicides going down, felonious homicides with firearms going down, while total firearms in society numbers are going up.
The means to murder is not the cause of murder. The left focuses on the means, claiming that eliminating a means will reduce homicide with that means. That is a silly argument that is inconsequential if the number of murders rise because of substitution or unintended consequences (such as eliminating a means of deterrence).
The problem is that the gun-grabbers are fond of muddying the waters by including things like vehicular homicides, etc.
Also, they treat ALL firearms homicides -- including Justified (defensive) homicides -- as "bad". ("Gun violence"...)
Felonious homicides vs justified homicides, IMHO, is the preferred indicator. And, if the total of the two is decreasing, so much the better -- particularly as firearms ownership/freedom to carry/use is increasing.
~~~~~~~~
We're on the same page. But you can bet the liberals will never join us there...
P.S. I am aware that increased defensive carry should have a negative effect on other forms of crime, as well -- but the GGs will never admit that... :-(