New York State has a murder rate of 4.4/100k. New York State has fairly stringent, by American standards at least, firearms laws. Vermont has a murder rate of 1/100k, on par with Italy. Vermont has almost no firearms laws beyond the federal ones, and in fact anyone over the age of 18 can carry a concealed handgun with no permit required.
It's almost like there are different factors that affect crime rates than simple access to firearms :^)
That's beautifully cherry-picked data, given that Vermont's most populous city only has 42k people in it. My home suburb has 60k, for comparison.
Would that be considered one of your 'different factors', that it has no real urban environments to compare to New York (eg NYC 8M) or Italy (eg Rome 4M)? Hardly an apples-to-apples comparison.
By your logic it sounds like we should be banning cities rather than banning guns. Additionally, it makes the comparison of the US and Italy invalid, because the two are in no way comparable in terms of population.
Let's try Washington, D.C. (population ~600,000) with almost 22 murders per 100k vs Houston, TX (population ~2 million) which had 11.8 murders per 100,000. Both are urban environments, and in this case the more populous one did not have a higher homicide rate.
But let's back up for a second and see if these differences are even meaningful. Comparing the overall rates for the US and and Italy (and assuming that all people are equally likely to be murdered), you have a 0.00001% chance of getting murdered in Italy and a 0.00005% chance of getting murdered in the US.
I'm pointing out that Vermont doesn't have any dense urban environments. You should look at criminology more before making some of the crazy claims you're making. Yes, more crime happens in urban environments; criminology is pretty clear on this. But what you originally did was point to a largely non-urban area and claim it as a counterpoint to places that have dense urban locations.
you have a 0.00001% chance of getting murdered in Italy and a 0.00005% chance of getting murdered in the US.
Presenting the statistics this way? Yes, you really do need to study criminology a bit more to understand why this is a bad way to present data. In Honduras, you have a 0.0009% chances of getting murdered (per year). Still sounds tiny, yet that country is the murder capital of the world and very much not safe to live in.
It's also worth noting that I never said that crime was directly proportional to population.
Edit: the other side of the 0.00005% argument is: if you're making the argument that it's really rare to die from guns, then why bother with the 'if only X had a gun' argument? If it's that 'rare', why bother making that argument in the first place?
It's almost like there are different factors that affect crime rates than simple access to firearms :^)