If this kind of data manipulation can be done to account for cause and cure with no control groups or understanding of which individuals have taken the medication, please, run the numbers as the data is already available. We have this wonderful invention called the internet where you can self publish your results.
You should be comparing guns and crime more to the effectiveness of a medication (the gun, in case you need a hint) on a disease (crime, you compared crime to a disease and say you can look at it as an epidemic, right?). The problem is the medication (the guns) being distributed randomly through out the population where some people have a lot of medication, some have zero medication. Now tell me the effect of this medication (guns) at curing a disease (crime) in the populace by looking ONLY at the people that are still infected (victimized). That sounds kind of dumb unless somebody was also keeping track of who used the medication (was armed) and who did not before they were infected (victimized). As far as I'm aware, we are not keeping any meaningful records on who had taken the medication (been armed) and still been infected (victimized) to even pull a small amount of data from the situation. Please, enlighten me how this all works out in your mind.
Legal gun ownership and crime[s committed by those owners] do not correlate on any meaningful level. I figured you were intelligent enough to read into the meaning, don't be ridiculous.
What is your defense now? Look somewhere else. Let me break this down easy for you. Guns don't commit crime, people commit crime. Guns can prevent crime or at least reduce the damage of a crime. This is why we call people with guns when we are in trouble.
If nuclear weapons were outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons. Therefore: Everyone should have nuclear weapons. Problem?
You are poorly failing to compare a weapon with less than 600J of energy to something with 4.184×10^15J of energy. You are equating the power to kill a few people to the power to eliminate a large metropolitan area. This is the same as asking if it were ok to drop a grain of sand on your head or 200 empire state buildings.
You can't buy a nuke on a walmart shelf like you can a gun (behind a glass case, whatever). Anybody can get and operate a gun, I would go as far as to say that ALMOST anybody could even make a rudimentary gun with simple hardware store parts. You cannot do this with a nuke.
Ever heard of the cold war? Mutual destruction? Every country with any significant power/interest in wold politics/commerce does have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are essentially outlawed with all of the regulation. We try very hard to not let those outlaws get the technology to build weapons of this type. We also try very hard to prevent unstable government entities from getting nuclear technology to prevent the sale of weapons like this to outlaws.
This man has a drivers license! Lets give him his own Airbus A380!
Don't take it too far. Your analogy creates a slippery slope. Problem?