>>>I can't believe your stance. So arguing that the numbers of non-gun deaths is substantial is a legitimate reason to ignore the gun deaths?? If half of those gun death did not happen because there was no gun at hand, we could have prevented about 6,000 homocides each year, and reduced the number of homicides by a a 4th to a 3rd.
>>>
>>>Don't you see the point ????
>


You also don’t seem to get the point Walter. There are two mistakes that you make imo:

1) Gun related accidents. These represent a minority of gun-related incidents as has been explained.

2) You attribute the lower gun-related incidents in Holland to the strict gun laws. You are attributing a cause to an effect, but you have not proven this relationship. I think the low gun-related incidents in Holland is due to a low crime rate in general, which is due to the fact that Holland, and several other European countries, have by and large managed to satisfy Maslow’s hierarchy of needs for the vast majority of the population which therefore makes crime a much less attractive alternative (or requirement) compared to simply abiding by the law.

It’s the crime rate, not the weapon used in crime. Solve the right problem. People want a crime free society. Gun availability (or a lack thereof) becomes much less relevant if the society is law abiding and free of crime.