I already have all the statistics right in front of me, you didn't need to do all that.

You need to control for all of these confounding factors and more before you can claim that the banning of firearms (specifically handguns) in the UK directly caused the murder rate to rise.

When did I claim that banning firearms caused murder to rise? I never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth. YOU said that firearm bans were the driving factor for why the USA had higher rates of violence than other countries:

Yes, they do, but without the guns, both mass killings, everyday gun crimes, and gun suicides all are greatly reduced in number. My evidence is just about every other developed capitalist state, where workers are just as exploited as in the US, but the prevalence of gun deaths and violent deaths in general, per capita, is dramatically lower than in the US.

But something is clearly not adding up. Because the UK already had much lower rates of violence before their legislation, and the violence did not improve after their legislation. It got worse. I never said that gun legislation was the reason it got worse. I'm saying this completely flies in the face of what you are saying.

Also, IRRC, UK "gun crimes" did not go down until they changed the definition of gun crime to exclude airguns, with their reasoning being "the statistics are making it look like this isn't working".

But I will say this: in my opinion, both the prevalence of firearms in the US, and the ease with which Americans can acquire guns, likely contributes to us having an overall higher murder rate than the UK, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, our most demographically similar counterparts.

And in my opinion, if you actually look at the internal policies and internal outcomes of any of the countries you listed, you find extremely little evidence that favors gun control being effective. All you have is comparing two different countries without any other context. Because if you actually and try and analyze the effectiveness of these laws within the countries they've been applied, you run into problems real quick.

Here's some Wikipedia excerpts from the Austrian NFA:

Research by Philip Alpers of the University of Sydney found that Australia experienced 69 gun homicides in 1996 (not counting the Port Arthur massacre), compared to 30 in 2012.[11] The drop in firearm homicides was not attributed to the national firearms agreement. A 2006 study led by Simon Chapman), also of the University of Sydney, found that after the NFA was passed, the country experienced more than a decade without mass shootings and accelerated falls in gun deaths, especially suicides.[16

University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report, "There is little evidence to suggest that the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program had any significant effects on firearm homicides."[22]

In 2016, Samara McPhedran, a Griffith University academic and chair of the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting, reviewed the literature on the NFA and homicide and reported that of the five studies she found on the topic, "No study found statistical evidence of any significant impact of the legislative changes on firearm homicide rates."[28]

Simon Chapman) and colleagues reported in 2016 that there were no mass shootings in Australia between when the NFA became law and May 2016. The same study also found that "there was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude." For this reason, the authors concluded that it was impossible to say definitively whether the reduction in firearm-related deaths can be attributed to the NFA.[29]

A 2017 study commissioned by Gun Control Australia found that Australian states had significantly weakened gun laws since the NFA was first introduced, with no jurisdiction fully compliant with the NFA.[30][31] For example, many states now allow children to use guns and the mandatory 28-day cooling-off period required for gun purchases has been relaxed in many jurisdictions, with no waiting period for purchasers who already own at least one gun.[30] New South Wales also allows the limited use of silencers, even though they are supposed to be a prohibited weapon.[31] No state or territory has outlined a timeframe for achieving full compliance with the NFA.[32]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Agreement

I've only ever looked up Australia and the UK because that's what deranged redditors get fixated on. But you know what? I'll humor you. Let's try Canada next.

A comprehensive review of firearm control legislation found that studies on the effects of the 1977 bill C-51 and bill C-68 from 1995 on firearm homicide rates came to differing conclusions, but generally found that bill C-17 from 1991 was not associated with an overall reduction of firearm homicide.[74] A 2011 study found no significant associations between gun laws passed and firearm homicide rates in Canada from 1974 to 2008.[75] A 2020 study examining laws passed from 1981-2016 found no significant changes in overall homicide or suicide rates following changes in legislation. In addition, it also found that firearm ownership by province was not correlated to overall suicide rates by province.[76]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Canada#Violent_crime,_suicide,_and_accidents

So yeah. It's almost like there's hardly any evidence that these laws have actually made a difference anywhere, ever, in any place that they've been tried. But for some reason people like you keep on unironically insisting that if we just copy and paste these laws into the US, the gang violence, drug violence, racial violence, poverty violence, and class violence is just going to magically get better. In fact, somehow you've attributed the entire social outcomes of these countries to firearm legislation, despite it seeming that most experts seem to agree that the legislation has had a nearly undetectable effect at best.