Some facts:
Counties with the highest rates of gun ownership have less violent crime than those with lower rates of gun ownership.
In states that adopted "shall issue" concealed carry license policies the crime rates dropped after adopting those policies. Why? Because criminals prefer not to get shot. This was contrary to the rhetoric of the anti 2nd amendment crowd who said there would be frontier style shootouts in the streets on a daily basis.
Despite very restrictive gun control in the U.K. gun crimes increased by 89% in a decade. Some areas reported a seven fold increases. Like certain counties in the U.S. the areas with the highest rates of legal gun ownership reported the fewest amount of gun crimes.
Despite very restristrictive gun control laws in Mexico it is one of the most violent countries. Mexico city is the world leader in kidnappings. Mass buriel sites and be- headings are almost commonplace. Cartels regularly possess weapons that have never been sold in American gun stores. Crew served machine guns, Heavy machines guns, RPG's, grenade launchers, etc. Only the corrupt police, federal forces and cartels are afforded an opportunity to defend themselves.
In Australia after law abiding gun owners were forced to turn in 650,000 privately owned guns in 1996 crime has been on the increase. It was on a steady decline prior to this. Country wide homicides increased by 3.2%. Assaults increased by 8.6%. Armed robberies up by 45%. In the state of Victoria homicides increased by 300%. Gun control works. It efficiently disarms the law abiding, emboldens criminals and leaves their victims defenseless.
Despite very strict gun control in Norway, 92 adults and children were killed by a mass murderer in 2011. Had any of the victims been afforded the means of self defense there is no doubt in my mind the casualty count would have not been this high.
In Switzerland, a country of 7.9 million there are 4.5 million firearms. It has one of the highest rates of gun ownership of any country. In 2009 they reported only 24 gun related homicides.
During WWII Imperial Japan formulated an invasion plan for the U.S. After taking into consideration the amount of firearms in civilian hands they cancelled their invasion plan.
So called assault weapons are used in only .20 of 1% of all violent crimes and in about 1% of all gun crimes yet they are depicted by the media and politicians as personally owned nuclear devices and are the first thing to typically be called for banning. In California AR type rifles are considered "assault rifles" and are restricted. Mini-14's are not. Both fire the same caliber, have the same rate of fire and accept 20 and 30 round magizines. They are equally deadly. Why is one banned and the other one isnt. Because one looks mean and the other doesn't. It is obvious that those that make the laws are clueless.
Several states have banned 50 BMG rifles. I cannot find one documented case of this rifle type ever being used in a crime. Several states have restrictions on the possesion of air guns, slinghots, slinghot ammo, folding knifes, crossbows etc. Has there been a rash of air gun crimes that I am unaware of?
American cities with the highest incidence of violent crime coincidentely also have the most restrictive gun control.
After taking power totalitarian regimes have traditionally then called for strict gun control.
If you were a robber, burglar or aspiring mass shooter, would you prefer for your victims to be armed or unarmed?
While calling for gun control seems to be politically correct and just "feels" good to some, it has no effect in preventing crime. In fact the opposite is true.
Draconian gun control is as American as Communist China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Am I against all forms of gun control. Absolutely not. Felons, drug users, and those with certain psychological disorders should not own guns. I even think that a certain level of training should be required along with gun storage requirements. If the requirements are reasonable I am all for it. The problem is most law makers are not reasonable and it is more than obvious if they had their way there would be no civilian ownership. Total disarmarment and restrictions of personal liberties almost always happens in small increments. That way there measures appear to be reasonable and it gives the population time to get accustomed to having their rights violated.