You may be really smart... but your post (see below) does not seem to be the product of an informed intellect on this subject for at lest 2 reasons...
1. sometimes constitution rights are more important than individual outcomes. That is why we we have a beyond reasonable doubt standard and tough jury thresholds before we convict people in criminal court. Some guilty people go free to keep innocent people out of jail...
We are granted the right to bear arms even though guns can hurt people.
2. As far as jurisdictions and gun control you statement seems wildly inaccurate to my more informed understanding... for instance...
harvard found...
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/harvard-study-stringent-gun-controls-lead-to-higher-murder-rates/
Comparing the U.S. with England, which banned most guns by the late 1990s, researchers found “a negative correlation” showing “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.”
That’s the same conclusion researchers with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reached in a 2004 study, as did a U.S. Centers for Disease Control study the year before, Kates and Mauser wrote.
“Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms,” they wrote. “Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold. In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law-abiding enough to turn them in to authorities.”
At the same time, “despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence,” according to the Harvard study.
The narrative about guns contributing to violence in the U.S. is perpetuated by the media in coordination with gun control advocates, according to Scott Bach, president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs told Belief Net.
“Criminologists of all political persuasions, in over a dozen studies,” writes Bach, “estimate that firearms are used for protection against criminals several hundred thousand to 2.5 million times per year, often without a shot fired. This is a staggering statistic, but it’s not one you are likely to hear on the evening news. Why is it that you don’t hear about the homeowner who defended his family before the police could arrive; or the shopkeeper who saved his own life and the lives of his customers; or the woman who stopped her own rape and murder; or the teacher who stopped the school shooting?”
“Why? A study by the Media Research Center concluded media coverage of firearms is overwhelmingly biased. In a recent period, “television networks collectively aired 514 anti-gun stories, to a mere 46 that were pro-firearm, a ratio of more than 11-to-1 against firearms,” he told the news site.
Well, let's be fair and respect the US constitution. But the constitution and its widely agreed interpretation makes it perfectly clear that the right to bear arms can never be of higher priority than respecting others' freedom as well. That means owning a gun is not more important than preventing harm to others. And here your fact kicks in: In almost all jurisdictions with strict gun controls the crime rate is lower, not higher. If we can prevent more killings with stricter gun controls then it makes a lot of sense to have a reasonable discussion about it.
