There's some evidence to show that the reason for the different stats in different countries is cultural. For instance the gun death numbers for Japanese-Americans, who have access to firearms same as any other Americans, are even lower than in Japan itself. Seems to suggest access to firearms is not the problem, and restricting access is not the solution.
There's also the notion that the right to keep and bear arms is the difference between being a citizen and being a subject. England, Canada and Japan are the countries most often compared to the U.S. for gun crime. Americans think of themselves as more "Free" than people in those countries, and are generally willing to put up with the higher gun death stats that result. (Same as allowing more highway deaths for a higher speed limit.)
I generally agree with both propositions, but I'd like to see some unbiased statistics on the actual result of restrictive gun laws, for instance honest "before and after" numbers with other factors ruled out. What were the numbers before handguns were banned and after the ban. And I want to see the numbers, not somebody's interpretation as to what they mean.
For instance, there are 30 some odd states in the U.S. that passed laws allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns. In every one of those states the violent crime rate fell, and the "gun crime" rates either fell or stayed the same. So what would the argument against concealed carry be?
But the gun issue is viewed as a gut-level survival issue by both sides and unbiased number are hard to come by.

O'Meara