As a side issue - are guns taxed? The only analogy I can think of is things like alcohol and cigarettes - both of which kill loads, both of which are legal. The reason, at least over here, is the tax revenue they bring in.
This can be deceptive. I ran the numbers on this once here in Canada - cigarette tax revenue vs health care burden. In the end, it turned out that each smoker cost the government about $5/year.
Theres actually an interesting study by Harvard that talks about this: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Basically the study talks about 'minimization' especially during the cold war in which many countries had a major incentive to lie about their gun related murder rates. Theres also a negative correlation between firearms deaths and number of weapons when it comes to homicide when you look at a local level breakdown.
Err... not sure how to put this gently, but that study is crap. Not only is it extremely unprofressional and transparently biased (just look at how they sneer at anything they perceive as anti-gun), but... its data is highly suspect. As in completely untrustworthy. See the bit about homicide rates in Europe, upon which their entire argument that guns and homicide are uncorrelated rests? Cherry-picked from four years
by a non-European country that didn't source its data well enough to verify. Interestingly, despite mining its data, the authors barely mention
Canada, except to say that murders are less common where there is one person per two square kilometers than in cities. This might strike you as rather obvious, and it is - until you mask it by saying that regions with higher gun ownership have lower murder rates.
So you might be getting fewer accidents with an all out ban on weapons, but you could be trading that in for a significantly higher homicide rate. Mainly because the worst thing for a criminal is a gun owning victim. An armed victim presents the potentially highest possible cost for a criminal.
Even if we accept your source as legitimate - which I certainly do not - the second half of this paragraph does not follow from anything prior and makes some huge assumptions. First, you're assuming a gun-owning
person is an armed
person. Gun-owners, how many of you have a loaded weapon within arm's reach right now?
Second, you're assuming that guns reduce the desirability of a target. This is not necessarily the case; my local police have found the opposite. Guns themselves are highly desirable targets for criminals.