> That's a false equivalency, less guns certainly equal less people shot. Let's use Australia as a case study.

Australia is a poor case study for a several reasons. Homicide rates in Australia have always been pretty low compared to the US. Gun regulation have done nothing to change overall homicide rates.

Additionally, Australian gun buy-back and confiscation schemes received a 20% compliance rate - meaning that 80% of Australian gun owners have refused to comply. With so little cooperation, it's relatively impossible to tell whether confiscation has accomplished any positive benefits.

Another important problem with your thesis is that Australia and the US represent two entirely cultures - with entirely different histories and traditions. Comparing these two cultures is absurd on its face; it's the socio-engineering equivalent of attempting to jam a square peg into a round hole