Starting with the not so interesting, The Correlation Between Gun Ownership and Homicide Rate. The sub-header tells you why this article is "shite unseen" (my term for anything you don't need to actually read or watch to know it's shit):
"If you control for developing countries and South Africa [...] there is a strong link between the number of guns per capita and gun-related homicides in a country."
If you think this sentence translates all too readily to "if we come up with some rationalizations to hand-wave away the data that doesn't support the hypothesis (and especially the data that contradicts the hypothesis), the (remaining) data will support the hypothesis," you're absolutely right; that is exactly what the article does. And that's before you even point out that "firearm homicide" does not equal "overall homicide."
Rather more convincing is the follow-up piece, Gun Ownership Neither Increases Nor Decreases the Crime Rate. This piece looks not only at overall homicide rates, rather than just firearm homicide rates, but also looks at other violent crimes. Money quote:
The piece goes on to explain why the same applies to other violent crimes such as assault and robbery.There is no reasonable way to cherry-pick any sample of countries to arrive at a significant correlation, or even a hint that reduced gun ownership lowers overall homicide rate.
Perhaps most interesting is a piece that appeared before the others listed, The Truth About Violence and Gun Policy in the United States. The author argues a lot of the points we, as left-leaning gun lovers, are well familiar with: that mass shootings get a disproportionate amount of attention for what constitutes (in terms of victims) less than a percent of gun violence in the U.S.; that the role of mental illness in gun violence is severely overestimated; and that policy measures that focus on preventing mass shootings will, at best, make a tiny dent in the amount of gun violence overall. Were I (predictably) disagree with the author is his assertion that "no-brainer controls" such as "such as 'turning off the faucet' on high capacity assault weapons, tightening up background checks, and closely monitoring sales at gun shows" would produce "a modest but meaningful effect"; that is, I agree with the "modest" part but I'm not so sure about the "meaningful" part. After all, prior to Aurora and Sandy Hook, the mass shootings that racked up the highest number of victims (such as Virginia Tech, Luby's restaurant in Killeen, TX, and the Edmond, OK post office--the original "going postal") were each committed using a pair of handguns. You don't need a so-called "assault weapon" to inflict mass carnage (in fact, you don't even need a firearm, but I digress).
Anyway, I thought these were worth sharing.