The following is from an article I published last year in the Cardozo De Novo Law Review.

A more reasonable approach than dreaming hazily of a gun-less society as anti-gun fantasists do, is to examine the actual phenomenon. Russia is an actual real world gun-less society. Handguns have been totally banned to civilians since1929; and unlike wealthy western nations where such bans are unenforceable, in a poor society like Russia with a police state government the ban was enforceable. As a result, gun murders among the general populace have always been rare in Russia. Yet as far back as records are available (the 1960s) the murder rate in gun-less Russian has always been higher than in gun-ridden America. As of the year 2000 it was almost four tines higher. (The suicide rate was also almost four tines higher.)  

In fact, Russia has by far the highest murder rate among the industrialized nations and one of the highest murder rates among all the nations of the world. Moreover the murder rates of the now-independent but still gun-less nations that used to be part of the USSR are generally about three times higher than the American murder rate.

These facts do not necessarily prove that depriving victims of the means of self-defense promotes murder. But the facts certainly cast doubt on the faith that bamming guns is the sovereign remedy for violent crime.  Further doubt is cast by comparing European gun laws and murder rates. Contrary to the mythology perpetrated by ignorant anti-gun advocates and the equally ignorant media, gun control cannot be what kept and keeps European murder rates so low compared to the U.S. For Europe had much lower murder rates before it had gun control laws.  

Moreover, though the gun laws in the principal European nations are significantly different from American, they are not more restrictive. The primary difference is that European gun laws were adopted to preclude political violence not apolitical violent crime.  

In many cases, European gun laws are less restrictive than those of the most restrictive American states. For instance, law abiding Italian adults have more freedom to arm themselves than do Californians. Unlike Californians, law abiding Italians are free to buy 14-shot Browning semi-automatic pistols, or 16 shot Berettas or 18 shot Steyrs. (Note that Europe invented all these high-capacity magazine weapons.) A law abiding Italian just goes into his local gun store and buys whatever he wants with no permit or waiting period required. There is but one exception: Without a special license, Italians may not purchase handguns in the "military caliber," i.e., 9mm Parabellum. But they are free to buy more powerful handguns in .45 ACP, 10mm and .40 S&W and 9mm Ultra as well as handguns in 9mm. Long and 9mm Short or of any other type than 9mm Parabellum.

The reason for this exception is simple: it is aimed at the keeping of weapons for revolution, political assassination or terrorism whereas American gun restrictions are aimd at apolitical violence.  Law abiding Austrians are free to buy any revolver they want without permit or other restriction, including such untra-powerful ones as the .500 S&W magnum, the .500 linebaugh, the .480 Ruger, the .475 linebaugh, the .454 CASULL, and the less powerful .44, 41 and .357 magnums. Somewhat like N.Y. N.J., MA, CT., MO, and N.C. which require a permit to buy any kind of handgun, to buy semi-automatic pistols Austrians are required to have a permit. But unlike those states, Austrian law requires that a permit must issue if the handgun is for self-protection. As in Italy, an extra-special permit is required for a semi-automatic in 9mm. Parabellum, but Austrians are free to buy a semi-automatic in any other caliber. And there is no restriction on high capacity magazines.  

Law abiding French citizens need no permit to buy any revolver with a 19th Century design, i.e., "cowboy guns," and that includes 21st Century-manufactured copies of cowboy guns. Permits are required for any other handgun but, again, they are freely granted to the law abiding for protection.  

The foregoing is not to deny that the spectacular growth of post WWII violent crime in Europe belatedly prompted some nations to adopt severely restrictive gun laws in the last quarter of the 20th Century. The authoritative (and anti-gun) Swiss Small Arms Survey estimates that nine such European nations have fewer than 5,000 firearms per 100,000 population. In contrast, it estimates seven European nations have gun possession that exceeds 15,000 per 100,000 population. But gun control works no better in Europe than in America. The murder rates of the low-gun possession nations are three times higher than the murder rates of the high gun possession nations.

A Brief Digression on Violent Crime and Response Thereto in Europe: Having been misled by the common American stereotype of peaceful Europe, I was shocked at what I saw in the nine trips I made as a tourist or to participate in conferences over the years 1995-2006. First, as a former American police official, I was stunned by the difference in European policing, Neither in France nor the Czech Republic did I ever see a lone police officer. Police always traveled in groups of at least two and often as many as six officers. Routine police patrols looked like full-scale raids to one accustomed to American practices. Occasionally I would see a lone officer directing traffic. But on looking around I would see two or three other officers in a near-by police vehicle "covering" him.  

And the armament: On one trip I had occasion to fly in and out of Paris airports and many times be at Paris railway stations and on the subway. Wherever you looked there were police officers or officer-cum-soldiers carrying fully automatic weapons as well as sidearms. As I walked by an ordinary jewelry store in Venice, Italy I saw a private security guard carrying a sub-machine gun in addition to a handgun. In contrast, over a lifetime of observation, roughly a decade of it as a police official, I have never seen an American police officer carrying a fully automatic weapon for routine patrol.  

Building design is also indicative: Unlike U.S. banks I saw all over Europe banks with only one entrance which consisted of multiple massive bullet-proof glass doors electronically controlled from inside the bank. Assuming a robber could get in to rob the bank, how would he get out? Bank personnel could be coerced to open the inner door, but the outer door will not open while the inner is open. If he went through the inner door it would close behind him, the bank personnel would not open the outer door and the robber would end up trapped between the two doors, waiting for the police to arrive. Or he could refuse to enter the inner door and just wait in the bank until the police arrive. Or he could kill all the bank personnel... and then just wait in the bank till the police arrive.  

Innovative solutions to bank robbery. But very expensive.