No, not at all - the statistics make no sense at all unless we include the number of guns in society as a factor.
There are a number of factors which seem to influence homicide rates:
1) high possession of firearms vs low possession of firearms
2) urbanisation vs rural community
3) high incidence of organised crime, drug trafficking, mafia etc
4) economic development & political stability.
For 3), let's remove countries known for organised crime, such as Mexico, Estonia, Russia, Ukraine, Colombia etc.
For 4) let's remove any war zones or places close to them, such as most of Africa and the Third World.
2) is quite clear (guns in rural areas tend to be used more safely than those in cities) but can't easily be removed from studies - although it can be taken into consideration if we compare an urbanized society or a society with large urban areas (Japan) with a more rural one (New Zealand).
What this leaves us with is a grouping of some 30 - 40 or so economically developed societies, all with significant urban areas.
These societies: US, Switzerland, France, Finland, Greece, Canada, Sweden, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, UK.
are the highest in terms of gun ownership.
These societies: US, Portugal, Switzerland, Finland, UK, New Zealand, Canada, France, Belgium, Spain, Austria, Australia, Italy, Greece, Germany, Sweden.
are the highest in terms of homicide
There is a VERY CLEAR and obvious correlation between these sets of figures, with only Portugal and to a lesser extent Belgium not matching the trend.
The US, for instance, is highest in terms of gun ownership, and highest in terms of homicide. Finland is 4th highest in terms of gun ownership, and 4th highest in terms of homicide. Denmark has extremely low gun ownership, and extremely low homicide rates.
If we balance for urbanisation, the trends become even closer.
If you can explain this in any way which suggests that gun possession is NOT linked to homicide rates - go right ahead.