It's not like you can finish an equation and be done. That's not how the real world works.

There are multiple studies, none conclusive because nothing ever is. Most of them do point to more guns = more deaths, however.

If you want research, keep in mind that the government has been more or less banned from doing it. Now that that requirement is lifted, maybe we can get something more rigorous. It certainly appears the NRA and the rest of the gun crowd are afraid of what they might find, or they wouldn't be fighting so hard to stop it.

For the time being, you can start with this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

"Although we do not yet know exactly how guns affect us, the notion that more guns lead to less crime is almost certainly incorrect. The research on guns is not uniform, and we could certainly use more of it. But when all but a few studies point in the same direction, we can feel confident that the arrow is aiming at the truth—which is, in this case, that guns do not inhibit crime and violence but instead make it worse."

One popular move is to demand 100% proof, a condition that will never be satisfied. Science never gives 100%. You just have to go with the preponderance of the evidence or throw all science out the window.

I'm not out to repeal the 2nd amendment, I just agree with Scalia that limits are appropriate, especially since none of the other rights in the Constitution are considered absolute.

So the question isn't "shall not be infringed," that's a dead letter. The question is "where should the limits be?" Which should be a democratically decided issue in this here democratic republic. More voting, less screaming and threats of blood in the streets if we dare to treat the 2nd amendment the same way we do the others.

[Do you see my point about ideology? I've got the data on my side, and the rational arguments. I'm not relying on anecdotal evidence or any one study/data set. There's no conspiracy theory required, or questionable statements about other people's motives. It's not absolutist, so I don't have to be right about everything for it to hold up, I can be wrong here and there without blowing up the whole argument.

Also, if the data tilted the other way - a bunch of studies show that guns don't make us less safe - I'll do something really weird: change my mind and stop beating this drum.

Rather than basing beliefs on the data, the epitome of the Internets is people believing what they want and ignoring anything that points the other way.]