One cannot compare different countries because of all the variable involved. Mexico and Brazil have much stricter gun laws than the US and no one would argue those are safer less violent countries.
You can compare somewhat apples to apples. For example, two different States in the US. Those with very strict gun control laws like New York and Washington D.C. with those States that allow either or both concealed and open carry like Arizona and Texas. The States with stricter gun laws have considerable more violent crime and gun violence that States with more lenient gun laws.
And it's a staggering leap in logic to imply that more police in the U.S. are shot dead compared to the UK due to carrying firearms. That would imply that they would not have been shot dead if they were unarmed. And it discounts the very real instances where a police officer's life has been saved because they were armed.
And, of course, there is the common sense logic regarding a deterrent. What makes something or someone a deterrent? A deterrent is something that discourages or inhibits someone from acting out a specific form of behavior. If you wanted to commit an act of violence and hurt another person or refuse to follow the orders and directions of another person, wouldn't you choose someone who is weaker than you are? Weaker in the sense that they cannot enforce or stop your actions. Who would you be more likely to attack or ignore their directions or orders? An armed or an unarmed man.
Of course, a deterrent, be it a gun or a border wall, isn't going to stop everybody. Making certain behaviors illegal and punishable doesn't stop everybody. But just because you can't stop everybody doesn't mean you can't stop anybody. Just because not everybody obeys the laws doesn't mean that we should do away with all laws. The greater the deterrent the greater the compliance. That's why there is very little violent crime in totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union and North Korea. There's tons of corruption but very little violent crime in a society where you have no human rights.
yes you can compare different countries. nearly all of countries in the developed world have pretty similar (very low) homicide rate apart from the US which is the big outlier. nearly all of the other countries in the developed world have very strict gun control and very few guns in society, pro rata.
the problem in the US is the number of guns in circulation, which stems from the stupidly lax laws. at this stage it's pretty pointless comparing states because it is so easy for anyone in any state with or without strict gun laws to get a gun. the country is awash with guns.
i did not imply that more police are shot in the US because they carry guns. i asked the question that if guns are such great deterrents (as per the gun nut argument) why are police in the US (that all carry guns), killed at such a higher rate than those in the UK that are unarmed? and i am talking at probably 50X plus rate.
and, as is said, police also kill civilians at a far higher rate in the US than in the UK...and that is unarguably a direct result of them carrying guns.
so what i'm saying is when you hear people trying to mock the UK system becuase police are unarmed, which i've seen quite frequently on here. you only need to look at the stats to see which system in reality is working better and by quite some way.
south america is full of 3rd world countries, many with long standing political problems. so comparing them with the US really is comparing apples to oranges. AND it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of US guns illegally cross the border into mexico yearly. so not only is the ridiculous number of guns in circulation having grave consequences on your own society. it is also a major contributor to crime and violence in neighbouring countries too.
