gun script

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf examines the firearms-restrictions of various countries and the incidence of violence per-capita, and concludes that there is a negative correlation between firearms-restrictions and the incidence of violence (which is to say, where there are firearms-restrictions, there is a statistical increase in the rate of violent-crime per capita)... but it wasn't an extrodinarily strong negative correlation; suggesting that firearms-restrictions have some effect to increase violence, but that the incidence of violence per capita is related much more strongly to unexamined factors (political/economic/cultural/social) than to firearms-restrictions/firearms-ownership.

Also, John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime" is also an interesting analysis demonstrating a similar negative correlation between firearms-restrictions and incidence of violence per capita but I would have preferred to see alternative statistical-techniques in Lott's work.

Here are some other perspectives to consider:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/323766?uid=3739256&sid=21101586769147
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323311

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/338345

http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/police.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/323314?searchUrl=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3Ffilter%3Djid%253A10.2307%252Fj100232%26Query%3Djuvenile%26Search.x%3D4%26Search.y%3D16%26wc%3Don&Search=yes&uid=3739256&sid=56050142283

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/oupecinqu/v_3A36_3Ay_3A1998_3Ai_3A2_3Ap_3A258-65.htm

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/advances/vol4/iss1/art1/

http://econjwatch.org/articles/the-debate-on-shall-issue-laws

I'm concerned about how disparities of power, would have a tendency to increase the profit-potential of those who have the greater power. I observe that there are numerous news stories about illegal-drugs found in prisons, which indicates to me, that legal-prohibitions do not in fact, eliminate the prohibited item. If there is a prohibition on a kind of firearm, the firearm will not be eliminated, but will have a grey/black-market providing that firearm at increased costs. But those who wish to obey the legal-prohibition (probably out of fear to avoid punishment) are possibly thereby less able to defend themselves, creating a disparity of power, between those who wish to obey the prohibition and those who ignore the prohibition, which could potentially increase the incidence of violence. Because my objective would be to decrease the incidence of violence, I could not rationally support a restriction/prohibition that could create a power-disparity between different sets of persons; prohibition/restriction is not effective for "illegal drugs"http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/ &http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9C6x99EnFVdFuXw_B8pvDRzLqcA?docId=CNG.e740b6d0077ba8c28f6d1dd931c6f679.5e1and similiarly, I would not expect it to decrease the rate of violence if the prohibition/restriction were to be extended to particular forms of tools/implements of "firearms".

Using violence/coercion/bullying of government to reduce violence/coercion/bullying does not appear to me to be a rational or effective strategy.