Here’s why I don’t normally engage in the statistics game, and it is not because I don’t have plenty of statistics to counter pro gun-control statistics-the reason is, I can find statistics that support both sides of the gun control debate. I can find some place that has stricter gun controls and lower gun homicides. I can find statistics that show little or no gun regulations and lower gun homicides. I can also make a statistical case for higher incidents of gun violence under both conditions. Both sides use statistics in a misleading way-and not always knowingly. Both sides then will scramble to use foreign countries and their statistics to support their positions. The pro 2nd amendment advocate will cite a country with high gun ownership and low crime, but fail to point out that it is a country with a very low crime rate historically. The pro gun control camp will cite a country with strict gun controls and low crime rates, again failing to take in to account all of the complex factors aside from gun regulations or the lack thereof, and maybe ignore other high violent crime statistics. Different countries have vastly different cultures and their situation cannot be artificially applied to the United States.
Within our own borders, the same applies by city state and region. You can demonstrate evidence but unless you can prove gun law status to be causative, you are nowhere with your statistics. It took me some time admittedly to come to this conclusion. The statistics seemed overwhelmingly in favor of my position against gun control. The statistics were verifiable so “done deal” right? Not anymore. Pro gun control can present statistics that would suggest otherwise-but again without proof that gun legislation, or the lack of it is causative, you only have evidence, not proof. There are so many factors that are relevant to violent crimes that it is a statistician’s dream. I recently discovered a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study that concluded there is no evidence that gun legislation has any effect on gun violence. They came to the same conclusion generally that I did for many of the same reasons, but they lay it out pretty well in this study. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-proof-gun-laws-reduce-violence/
We find ourselves feeling helpless after school/campus shootings like the recent tragedy in Roseburg Oregon. Many have explored arming our teachers, stricter gun legislation, and sacrificing our right to privacy concerning our medical records. I find myself at a loss for the answers, while at the same time recognizing that as tragic as these mass shootings are-they are rare when compared to daily shootings in high crime areas where I’m pretty sure criminals would not follow stricter gun laws let alone outright prohibition of gun ownership. I recently read perhaps the best article to date on the subject of these rogue gunman situations-it is well worth the read. Take a look; http://mystudentapt.com/2015/10/06/theres-a-way-to-stop-mass-shootings-and-you-wont-like-it/
So what we are really left with is logic. I can boil that down to a couple of common sense questions. Certainly one would be if you are a violent criminal, would you prefer to ply your trade in an area of high concentration of gun ownership in the law abiding citizenry, or one where you knew the likelihood of encountering self defense by deadly force was far less likely due to strict gun laws? The answer is readily apparent.
I will add this one statistic without using numerical data-people need to start doing their own research-but this is indisputable. After Washington DC unconstitutionally implemented it’s gun ban, DC’s murder rate went up-not down. And even if we are talking about non-gun related homicides,criminal knowledge of a lack of legal gun ownership certainly will eradicate fears of victim capability of self defense. You should probably watch this report from John Stossel to find out what this statistic is, let alone what offenders have to say; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA
In the end, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Hunting when the Constitution was penned was basically like going to the grocery store in modern times. The ridiculous notion that it is to guarantee the right to hunt is tantamount to an amendment guaranteeing the right to bear shopping carts, The “well regulated militias” stated in the second amendment does not mean that it alone is the right guaranteed or there would be no need to further enunciate the right of citizens to bear arms, and after all-why would a country need to guarantee something to itself it already has, and has just used to attain independence? The government is not affirming “rights.” to itself. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to insure our protection against tyranny. In no other way would the second amendment make any sense.