Okay, when I first saw this picture, I thought it was a clever bit of propaganda --> America has 10 times the population of Canada, so obviously if gun violence was the same, America would certainly have a lot more deaths by gun violence than Canada. So I processed the numbers to include population: Estimated Population, 2004 New Zealand - 4,000,000 Sweden - 9,000,000 Australia - 20,000,000 England and Wales - 53,000,000 Canada - 32,000,000 America - 294,000,000 Ratio of people killed by guns to population New Zealand - 5 : 4,000,000 Sweden - 37 : 9,000,000 Australia - 56 : 20,000,000 England and Wales - 73 : 53,000,000 Canada - 184 : 32,000,000 America - 11,344 : 294,000,000 Percentage of population killed by gun violence (% * 1,000) New Zealand - 0.125% (/ 1,000) England and Wales - 0.138% (/ 1,000) Australia - 0.28% (/ 1,000) Sweden - 0.4% (/ 1,000) Canada - 0.575% (/ 1,000) America - 3.86% (/ 1,000) NOTE - All percentages were multiplied by 1,000, to make them easier to compare (ie: New Zealand - 0.000125% = 0.125% (/ 1,000) Proportionally (ie: including population), America had 6.7 times more people die by gun violence than Canada, and 30 times more people dead by gun violence than England and Wales. Even I was a little shocked to see such a broad difference. Spoiler AFTERTHOUGHT I realized after the fact that if America has 10 times the population of Canada, it should have 10 times the amount of people dead by gun violence than Canada --> If gun violence is the same in America and Canada, that number should be 1,840. Not 11,344. To show just how broad this difference really is: (Remember, 0.0000386 is the (decimal) proportion of people killed in America by guns) People killed by gun violence, if everyone was America (Population * 0.0000386) New Zealand - 154 Sweden - 347 Australia - 772 Canada - 1,235 England and Wales - 2,045 IMPORTANT This argument is, by necessity, somewhat based on the following idea: If gun crime is not affected by gun laws, the proportion (%) of people killed should be similar between nations with varying gun laws. Obviously, there are some serious flaws with that idea, as there are many other things at work. What I do see demonstrated in the above numbers, however, is a difference that IS vast enough that one could potentially develop an argument against guns, using those numbers. Spoiler I would've liked to have done some more crunching, using general homicide/murder numbers, rather than just gun crime, but I don't have the time today.