> Quite an assertion.

You must have misunderstood the assertion, then. I will attempt to clarify.

- Australia tried to get rid of guns, still has millions. Several hundred thousand of them illegal.

- Australia has a much lower firearms homicide rate, despite still having quite a lot of guns. Not the same ratio as the US, sure, but 4.5M guns for 28M people is still fairly prevalent and available.

- So the rate 1:50 ratio is not easily explained by simply reducing the number of guns in circulation. Something else is going on. Something harder to solve, even, than the second amendment.

Okay. I should have interpreted it to mean "So clearly that isn't the full answer". I interpreted it to mean "So clearly that isn't part of the answer".

I think reducing the "saturation" of guns is important, as it is a big driver of people's mindset, whereby they see a gun as an answer. By "saturation, I mean the number owned, their availability, their visibility, their promotion and so on. The US is a standout in ownership, in that it has almost twice as many civilian firearms per person than the next closest country [1]. I suspect the US is also a standout in the other areas: availability (Walmart, but less than before), visibility (open carry), promotion (NRA).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...

> Australia tried to get rid of guns,

False. - Gun regulation was made considerably more uniform.

Here is my actual IRL Australian neighbour legally shooting here in Australia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE