We have a hell of a lot of guns here. We have so many, in fact, that I posit we could double our number of guns and crime wouldn’t change at all. We have more than enough for everyone to get one if they wanted, and if we were to magically evaporate 80% of our guns here we’d still have plenty enough for everyone to get one. We’re so far past the saturation point on guns that any sort of “gun control” measure intended to make guns scarce is doomed. It’s literally not worth trying, mathematically speaking.

You’re not quite true on suicide ease. Women who commit suicide very often don’t choose guns, even if they have them in the home. Don’t fall in the trap of applying logic to the suicidal mind. Suicidal minds are sick, and are malfunctioning, so logic doesn’t always work.

More importantly, however, even with abundant guns, people would not use them to attain their purposes if they are living a financially secure, emotionally satisfying, and healthy life. How many Americans can currently afford such a life, if I may ask?

GINI coefficient and black population ratio are each five times more predictive of gun homicide rate than gun ownership is. It’s not overall wealth that drives homicide, its wealth inequality. It’s the perception of wealth differential within the community. The math on that is pretty solid.

Americans today, even the poorest ones, have it a hundred times better than folks did in the 1950s. Our homicide rates right now are at historic lows, with only one period in the last century being lower. The 1950s.

So it’s not about what you can afford, unfortunately. It’s about how much more your neighbor can afford than you can. And that’s weird, and it shouldn’t be that way, but that’s how it is. Math checks out.