I'm a scientifically-minded person, and it is an empirical fact that countries with more guns per capita have more gun deaths per capita, with the exception of Mexico. This makes sense to me. More guns around means more available to criminals (via theft), and more available to law-abiding citizens that turn criminal.
I'm a believer in the importance of the second amendment, and I don't think we need to revise it, but a lot of smart people whose opinions I generally respect do feel that way.
Is the higher rate of gun deaths simply the price we must pay for this freedom? Is it due to the gang violence in America that the numbers are so high? I'm looking for a way to understand this that will make an argument to rational people that we should not in fact infringe the second amendment, based on the desire for a society with less gun violence, not because it's written in the constitution. Am I looking in vain?
I understand based on what has happened in the UK since their handgun ban that such bans are not effective, and I'm quick to point that out to skeptics, but what about the argument that we shouldn't have the guns and the violence in the first place? Is there anything beside "look at the Bill of Rights" that can even be said, empirically, to such criticisms?