Don't think you got the point. That is using skewed statistics to paint a narrative. When I could easily do the same thing in the opposite way.
The question is why only police? Why not blame poverty instead of guns? Why not take into account density (which also contributes to poverty)? etc. etc.
FYI I don't even really support guns, its just the arguments seem weak.
How is that particular comparison using skewed statistics then? It's easy to just say things without explaining. I'm sure there may be some factors worth taking into consideration. But none that would conceivably make up for the fact that USA's population isn't 7000 times bigger than Norways. Not even close.
And I'm not just looking at police. That was just one of many examples.
Another example isn't comparing itself to any other nation. It just shows the difference gun control can make in a particular country.
In Australia, before the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 they had 10 massacres in the 10 years prior to that. Basically 1 massacre per year for 10 years.
But in 1996 they "banned" guns. And in the 20 years that followed, they had 0 massacres.
You don't have to compare to another country to see that it made a noticable difference.
Not saying USA's situation is identical to Australia by any means. But developed nations where guns are essentially banned seem to have significantly fewer instances of gun violence, and even homocides per capita. In every country I've looked into so far that appears to be the case. And that includes nations that previously allowed guns.
That said I'm not implying that USA all of a sudden banning guns would be a good idea. If they ever wanted to get to that point I imagine they'd have to take a much longer road than some other countries because of the number of guns they already have in circulation, their situation with organised crime, etc.
I don't mind if you support guns or not as long as you explain your reasoning.