The USA is how ever a terrible terrible choice for an example to use it for either in an argument to support guns or to be against it.
How? It's a first world country with lax gun laws and there's plenty of individual cases to showcase what happens when you do that, you can't just toss it away when it doesn't fit what you're saying.
Like said, there are first of all not really a great amount of statistics on it to get some good facts up thanks to the gun lobby.
Second, if you support lax gun control it pretty much seems to be not a great example, because the few statistics that are available suggest what we all can agree on, that their way of regulating things just sucks.
and if anti-gun...well, like said, there are barely any laws prohibiting guns to be owned there.
Not sure how to explain it well, but here is an attempt: the laws there are so bad that it is kinda like saying that just because to much sugar is bad for you, it does not mean sugar should be banned.
Ridiculous example, but i can not really explain it better.
But to be more clear, i personally think the ideal kind of gun restrictions should consist out of:
-Mental health checks every year
-there should be seperate mental checks for people who want:
- to shoot a gun at the gunrange and put their guns in a locker there
- to take their gun home and keep them with them for home defense
- to take their gun with them at public places in concealed carry fashion
-there should be laws as to how people store their guns, meaning:
-people have to store their gun in a gun locker/locked away in a safe place with certain safety specifics with the key in their possession at all time.
-....unless they are actually at the house/property, they should be allowed to carry firearms with them.
-there should be people controlling if those guns are properly stored.
-all guns should be registrated/lisenced so people know were guns are expected.
-No single specific kind firearm should be prohibited to be owned, .50 cal, bigger, automatic...should all be the same
-extra taxes on guns that are bellow a certain cost, as to avoid poor criminals getting their hands on it.
-when a gun is lost it should be authorities should be notified.
-destructive devices/ammo with explosive components in the actual bullets should be threated by law just like any regular ammo, unless their explosive power goes beyond a certain margin.
-those destructive devices beyond a certain grade should be registered as they were a gun and there should be evidence when they are used up.
-evidence of buying ammo should be saved by both the buyer and the ones that sell it, just as an extra countermessure
Something like that sounds ideal in my book.