I haven't read the other threads much, but I was referred to this article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:
It is long, but very well written and cited a huge amount of stats, figures, and articles from around the world--their conclusion is that, in the end, there is no correlation between more guns in society creating more violent crime. They admit it themselves that they were surprised to have to report that a greater prevalence of guns, statistically speaking, has very little relation to rates of homicide and other violent crime.
Rather, they suggest that it is the socio-cultural and economic situation of an environment that produces more violent crime. Interestingly enough, they state that areas with greater rates of violent crime indeed have stricter gun control laws, and that such areas have lower quality socio-cultural and economic situations.
Furthermore, while I see guns as solely being necessary for hunting, sport, and armed forces, the study states that states in the US that allow concealed firearms have seen lowered rates of violent crimes as such. This is because the general population is not murderers, and the vast majority of murderers isn't your average person who just snaps all of a sudden and has access to a gun, as per popular belief. Rather, the population of murderers, by and large, has a criminal history, has had multiple run-ins with the law, has social or psychological problems, and/or has been continuously exposed to areas of socio-cultural and economic distress and could probably gain access to a gun no matter the legality of the situation.
Sorry if this has already been pointed out, and I don't want to create more argumentation, but this is a well-researched fact-based report from probably the most highly respected institution in the world. Give it a read or skim through it and maybe it'll change your opinion on gun control laws; it certainly changed mine.