My 2 cents about the topic:
I divide society in two major groups, the criminal region (CR) and the lawful region (LR).
By violence I mean that a gun was used to injure or kill someone.
By interaction I mean that a gun was used to threat someone but not being triggered.
With a Gun restriction I think:
The amount of CR to CR violence will remain the same.
The amount of CR to LR violence will either remain or decrease.
The amount of LR to LR violence will decrease.
The amount of CR to CR interaction will remain the same.
The amount of CR to LR interaction will either remain or increase.
The amount of LR to LR interaction will decrease significantly.
I live in the LR world so from a LR to LR perspective it is exceptionally good with a gun restriction.
From a CR to CR perspective it is not changed, and whats going on here is not of my concern.
The crucial point is the CR to LR perspective. Would you want to decrease the violence by risking to increase the interaction? I would say deffinately. If I am a victim of a crime I have faith in the lawsystem of my country and I am convinced that the criminal will be arrested and judged. I might have lost some cash but I would be unharmed.
Some people would argue that a gun control would increase the CR domination over LR. But than I remind you Police/FBI/SWAT etc do have guns too and it is them who are responsible for the safety of the citizens.
TLDR
If you think your lawsystem works fine and that the police are doing their jobs right. Than a gun control is a great thing.
If you think your lawsystem and police force are somewhat corrupt or not doing their jobs. Gun control might not be as good.
---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 08:24 AM ----------
Thats why I love math :P