Jack, the facts are that comparing the United States to societies most similar to our own (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe), ALL of them have significantly lower murder rates than we do. And with few exceptions (Switzerland and Finland), there are far fewer guns per capita, and/or the gun laws are far stricter. Meanwhile, as I pointed out above, virtually all countries with higher murder rates than ours--regardless of their gun laws--are societies less like our own, and mostly experiencing some sort of political or societal unrest, either now or in the recent past. Or insurgency, or narcoterrorism. I used as my primary models the SAME countries YOU addressed, specifically, concerning their health care plans: UK, France, Italy. Apples to apples.

While guns don't kill people all on their own, they are certainly a tool of choice among murderers. And statistics clearly show that in societies most like our own, there are either fewer guns and/or tougher gun laws than we have--and FAR fewer murders.

Not that that is an argument to restrict gun ownership in this country. But it does show, clearly, that when one takes a "fair and balanced" look at statistics concerning a general proposition (unlike the unabashedly pro-gun propaganda piece you linked), it can lead one to a general conclusion that may be erroneous.

In the case of gun ownership/gun laws and universal health care, the devil remains in the details: the specifics of the particular country involved, and the particular health care plan (or gun legislation) proposed.

Jake, while people may die as a result of eating hamburgers or may slip and fall and die in the bathroom (or drown in the tub), neither hamburgers nor bathrooms are used to murder people. We're talking MURDER rate, not DEATH rate. Your analogy thus goes a bit wide of the mark.