What research has tried to correlate, and failed to do multiple times, is gain any level of certainty that restricting access to firearms reduces the amount of homicides regardless of method. Claiming that gun control saves lives is factually incorrect. It's more wishful thinking than based on a pragmatic view of reality.
Got any evidence to back up that assertion? I'd suggest that the wishful thinking is going on in your own head.
Lets look at multiple homicides. A killer with guns can kill more people in a shorter amount of time than a killer without guns.
In the UK and in Australia there were mass killings with guns. Then access to guns was restricted, and now there are almost no mass killings.
The mass killers didn't switch to crossbows or knives or catapults. They just stopped. We haven't seen a wave of "criminals" using guns to commit mass killings, they might not care about the gun charges, but that doesn't make them magically able to acquire firearms somehow.
If guns were more restricted in the USA such that, unsuitable people were unable to acquire them at all, and that some types of higher <powered/capacity/rate of fire> delete as appropriate guns were removed from sale then you'd see less mass shootings too.
the whole gun argument is highly politicised and overly partisan and instead of talking about sensible gun regulations both sides fight over extreme points of view that almost noone actually holds. So the argument goes round in circles and nothing much changes.
I really hope that this time around things are different and some changes happen. I certainly can't recall marches and suchlike happening on this scale before.
