That is about the most convoluted and useless set of data imaginable. I am no expert on this whole issue but it's also plain to see there is little value in drummed up stats from over-seas and completely different political situations. A similar argument would be to count the number of dead in WWII and blame it on guns without taking the fact there was a war happening into account. It has to be a joke... right?

Here's a better comparison from the same time frame and similar social and economic environments.

Guns per 100 residents in the US: 88.8
Annual homicides per capita by firearm in the US: 3.2

Guns per 100 residents in the Canada: 30.8
Annual homicides per capita by firearm in the Canada: 0.50

Ratio of guns per capita: 2.88 US to Canada
Ratio of firearm related homicides: 6.4 US to Canada

So the US has 2.88 times as many weapons per capita, but 6.4 times the number of homicides by firearm per capita. Those ratios should be comparable if social trends hold but they are out by over a factor of 2.2. That implies to me that there is a distinct problem with weapons being in the wrong hands State-side, not the right ones.

The "funniest" part is that if you do the same comparison between the US and Mexico you'll find that Mexico's firearm homicide rate is in turn 3x higher than the US. Americans will be the first to comment how out of control gun violence is south of the border and how unsafe Mexico is. Yet when someone from another country says the US is 2.5x worse than they are, there is no gun problem.

Perspective is everything... which is why these issues are so hard to solve.