Comparing levels of gun violence is fallacious, though. The real question is: do guns affect the overall rate of violent crime?
If guns are available, it is obvious that violent crime will more often involve them instead of knives, rope, and explosives (the other three big weapons in many places); but that alone is a neutral outcome. It is not a problem, in itself, that violent criminals use firearms to commit crimes.
The problem arises when firearms enhance criminals' violent outcomes when committing violent crimes. That outcome is harder to measure and build a political campaign on, but it is infinitely more honest and productive.
If guns are available, it is obvious that violent crime will more often involve them instead of knives, rope, and explosives (the other three big weapons in many places); but that alone is a neutral outcome. It is not a problem, in itself, that violent criminals use firearms to commit crimes.
The problem arises when firearms enhance criminals' violent outcomes when committing violent crimes. That outcome is harder to measure and build a political campaign on, but it is infinitely more honest and productive.