Sure Americans would still kill each other without guns, but would they do so to the same degree? Even if the exact same intent exists, if things are harder to

Sure Americans would still kill each other without guns, but would they do so to the same degree? Even if the exact same intent exists, if things are harder to do, they won't get done as much. After all, many people have cars in Japan, England, and any other country with strict gun controls, and they don't see the same levels of violence. If ice cream is 100 paces away from you, you're less likely to eat it than if it's right in front of you. It's basic psychology that the greater the friction to satisfy our impulses, the less likely we are driven by them. It's maddeningly obvious. Similarly if everyone else was eating ice cream. We're social creatures, we emulate what we see others do. This is the frustrating thing about this topic: it's a discussion about harm reduction, but people don't treat it that way and just throw up their hands and say 'oh it'd be the same without' when the data and logic don't support that. In decision making parlance, it's a classic perfect is the enemy of the good response. In HN parlance, this is a question of floats not ints. In gamer parlance, this is a question of DPS and AOE, and how much nerfing guns lowers it. I don't know how many more ways we can say it to get through to folks.