Perhaps what Bolling should have compared was the number of homicides
, instead of the number of gun deaths. There's tons of statistical evidence that the number of homicides (no matter what the weapon) per 100,000 citizens (the standard measurement) is far lower in the US than in many other countries, including many with highly restrictive gun laws (which is pretty much the rest of the planet).
Of course there are more gun deaths here, because there are more guns. In China, which literally bans gun ownership from citizens, has experienced a large number of knife attacks by citizens, some of which killed dozens of victims in one event. And if it wasn't a knife, it would be some other weapon.
I recently read some FBI statistics regarding gun murders and state laws. Turns out that California and Illinois, in 2013, experienced 20% of the handgun murders in the entire nation - even though the two states combined have 16% of the nation's population. Yet these two states have some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. Interesting how that works...
And what constitutes "gun violence"? these numbers are likely not restricted to handgun murder. (Violence != murder). Thousands of self-defense shootings take place in the US each year, not all resulting in death, and very few making headlines. And how much of that "gun violence" includes suicides and attempted suicides with a gun? +PolitiFact
may have pointed out the flaw in Bolling's statement, but the issue is far more complex than just a number-to-number contrast.