[WS:] You are demanding a standard of proof that science cannot produce - basically saying that if you cannot produce a smoking gun nothing can be proven (pun intended). In reality all you need to show is that certain factors increase probability of gun death, even if slightly, and that their effects are cumulative.
By sheer law of probability,if you greatly increase the number of firearms, the number of gun-related deaths or injuries is bound to increase, even in the absence of any other sociological factors. People blow off gaskets from time or simply accidentally mishandle weapons and it does not take more than that to kill or injure someone.
Then there are sociological factors that various schools of research quote as increasing the probability of violence: social disorganization (Chicago School http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_disorganization_theory), culture of militarism (Dane Archer), or class conflict to name the best known.
All of the factors quoted by these theories slightly increase the probability of violence, and since all of them are present in the US, their effects are cumulative.
So if you add it all together - gun availability, social disorganization, culture of militarism, class conflict etc - you will get a greater probability of gun related incidents in the US as compared to places where these factors are weak or non-existent. That is all that you need to show, at least by social science standards. If one wants something more certain one needs to turn to religion or ideology.
A similar reasoning is espoused by Jordan & Co who argue that is something does not completely eliminate gun related fatalities - it is completely ineffective. The knife-wielding Chinese dude is a classic of this kind of argument. Again what needs to be shown here is not total elimination but reduction of probability - and by sheer law of probability if you limit access to weapons - which is not the same as limiting ownership - you are bound to reduce the probability of gun related deaths and injuries, everything else being equal.
The opponents of any meaningful gun regulation would counter that we already have regulations and adding more regulations would pose too much burden on law abiding citizens. To be honest, I fund this argument dishonest and laughable. First of all, this country has almost non-existent regulations by international standards. A few regulations on the book, ridden with loopholes and lacking any meaningful enforcement doe not count as regulation in any meaningful sense. Effective regulation means enforceable ban of having these things in any public places except designated areas where they are securely stored and access is is limited and supervised. It was possible to pass such regulation in regard of smoking, so it should not be possible to pass it in regard to fire arms. However, none of it exists in the US, and in fact laws arr being passed that encourage carrying weapons in the public. It is similar to legislation not only discouraging smoking tobacco, but also allowing it in gas stations. Fire arm regulations in the US? Gimme a break!
As to the supposed burden on law abiding gun owners - this is purely bogus, which can be shown by using the same logic to, say, industrial safety. I doubt that many would buy the argument that industrial safety regulations that can reduce work-related injuries should be avoided because they are too burdensome to the employer. Of course, this may sound dear to the hearts of industrialists, but that argument does not have much traction outside those circles, especially on the left-leaning listservs. So here we are - on the one hand, convenience of gun owners vs. saving a few thousand lives a year. Which do you choose, Jordan?
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."