I am curious as to the methodology behind your disagreement. If two areas with radically different gun availability have about the same firearms crime rate, and areas within the same country (the US) have widely varying crime rates despite uniform federal gun laws, how do you figure that gun availability is the most important factor? If I can buy as many pistols as I want in Vermont and carry them virtually anywhere, and I can't buy a pistol at all in England, and yet the two have a comparable firearm homicide rate and overall homicide rate, then assuming availability is the biggest factor requires more than a statement of "disagreement" to be considered credible.
If you just want to say "I have no basis for my belief and refuse to change it despite any evidence to the contrary" then I understand. This means you have no rational basis for what you believe and the discussion is over. If on the other hand, you do have a solid argument to dispute my assessment that culture is a major factor, then I would love to hear it. As an aside, in addition to overall culture I believe there is economic opportunity, education, and other factors that reduce the appeal of crime (violent and otherwise), but which require political and actual capital to implement.
But if you really just want a quick fix with proven results and no votes by a Republican-majority Congress required, there have been programs in the US where the firearm homicide rate in a city (the capital of Connecticut) was dropped by 40% in one year, without banning any type of firearm or affecting regular gun owners in the least. And if someone's primary concern was decreasing the death rate, working to get programs like this implemented in other cities would probably be faster and save more lives than trying to get rid of the >99.9% of guns that are not and never will cause injury or death to anyone.
link
= new reply since forum marked as read