Apart from the issue of normalizing per capita, would you agree that the overall homicide rate, not the gun homicide rate, is what's important here? Certainly, if people don't have access to guns and they have a motive to kill, they may adopt other methods?To be fair I'm the only person presenting valid recent data and not claiming random causation or correlating x to y with no basis in fact.
I posted originally about the pointlessness of this clearly loaded troll post, but you cannot deny that less that 40 gun homicides vs 60m people is very impressive. To indulge you, per capita the numbers will be:
UK Gun Homicide 1 per 1578947
US Gun Homicide 1 per 26548
98.4% lower. I couldn't care less if some NRA member thinks I'm oppressed. Oppression for me is fear that drives you to live a life surrounded by so much threat you need to do everything armed with deadly force.
Actual homicide rate is 3:1 USA/UK.
The numbers you cite are only "impressive" to the extent that the low gun homicides aren't compensated for by higher numbers of non-gun homicides. Yet they do at least partially compensate.
Your stat does suggest one thing: that gun control actually does "work" to some extent in keeping guns away from people. But that point has limited value in this context since it doesn't matter if you kill someone with a gun or a knife. They're still dead either way.