Nuclear control works?
Yes, of course, that's why Adam Lanza didn't blow up Sandy Hook with his nuclear bomb. People use the tools available to try to carry out their plans.
The reason Adam didn't use a nuclear bomb isn't "because he decided not to". It's "because there weren't any available to him". This is why the argument "criminals don't follow the law" is stupid, because it's not about them following the law, it's about just making the tools unavailable.
You're equating guns with violence yet the state with the most guns per person has the lowest murder rate.
France has a very low murder rate yet is second in gun ownership. The highest murder rate countries generally have strict gun laws.
First, I didn't equate guns with violence. Very few guns (relatively) are used for violence. I think it would be fairly easy to separate the wheat (majority of unproblematic gun use) from the chaff (gun crime) with, oh, maybe 80% effectiveness if I were to speculate.
Second, yes. Outliers exist. Thank you, Captain Statistics. If you look at the rest of the dataset, your argument doesn't go very deep.
world wise statistics do not show that to be the case
I'm sure you know that is false. The correlation is between effective gun control and gun crime -- not between gun laws and gun crime. Laws don't do anything if you don't enforce them, like today America doesn't.
Your implication is the prevalence of guns must be the underlying reason for that,
Eh, not so much prevalence as availability. Similar but not the same.
Yes, guns are tools, tools commonly used for killing, just like lots of other tools which we regulate on a sliding scale of deadliness.