New Zealand experienced the same decline and compared to Australia they have lax gun laws. Did you watched the videos yet?
Like I said, I'm not watching long videos. I'm happy to read links. Speaking of links:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand"The regulation of guns in New Zealand is categorised as restrictive." Not as strict is Australia, sure, but hardly lax.
I'd point out that due to the close relationship between New Zealand and Australia, it's likely gun laws in one place would affect the other: it'd limit smuggling, for example.
First of all despite there use for transportation they still kill more than guns. Second, guns are used for target practice, hunting, protection from tyranny, and self defense and stats have shown that they are useful in that case and you haven't shown that they could've defended themselves by other means in the majority of the time.
Target practise is hardly as beneficial as getting to work, hunting is questionable as any kind of benefit, we've already gone over how if a government turns tyrannical guns wouldn't help you, and the self-defence stats are clear.
You've provided anecdotes, not stats, and actual stats did directly show that those without a gun could defend themselves just as well as those that did. Why is this so hard to understand, seriously?
A gun is quicker and requires less force to operate it. Plus you'll need a good amount of space to deliver a incapacitating blow with a bat and last I check the closet does give you that option.
Doesn't need to be incapacitating. Simple forwards-thrust would likely scare off your typical intruder, and would certainly do damage and push them back. There's your space.
Which have been debunked. Also that's an anti gun site. I lost the link but I'll post it after this.
Anti-gun site, sure, but at least it gives its source. Sure, everytown was misleading in a few respects, primarily in that it was broader in its definition of mass shooting, but I'd point out that shootings in general are just as relevant. The source of your link made a few false claims (for example: it said they relied on news reports to gauge whether it was a gun-free zone, but if you look at their source you see they were fairly careful. Springfield, MO, 11/15/14 they, for example, specifically called up the motel in question to ensure there were no prohibitions against guns). Plus they complained that referring to police being armed doesn't make fire-arms legal: ignoring the fact that as far as I can tell the only time that happened were in situations where the victims and typically the people nearby were police, so that was all that was required.
Even if you did the worst case scenario, you get far more than 8% in gun-free zones.
You might also find Tucson, AZ, 1/8/11 of interest: "An armed bystander, Joe Zamudio, mistook someone else as the shooter and prepared to fire on him before he was stopped by other bystanders." One of the issues I've pointed out previously.
Plus if we're comparing rebuttals:
http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-gun-free-zone-myth-mass-murder-magnets/The source of your article comes from someone who doesn't count as a shooting an event where someone was committing another crime at the time (such as armed robbery), and limits the shootings referred to improperly, among other errors. The 92% statistic remains thoroughly unsupported.
For one thing it rarely happens. When the Dallas shooting took place there was an open carrier in the region and the only thing that happened was he got detained. As to how to tell the difference, those who carry are taught to put the gun down once the threat is subdued. Announce that you're a CCW holder.
It rarely happens: that's my exact point. The situation where people in the scene get a gun and try to help the police is so rare, of course you're not going to get odd situations. Note that you still got one detained, demonstrating a mistake can be made; open carry doesn't mean holding and wielding it though.
Plus, how would they know the threat was subdued? There's every chance they haven't made it to the shooter yet, for example. They should still be holding their gun aloft: and in a case where there's a mass shooter, how often do you think the police would let them get a sentence out when they're brandishing a gun? And for that matter, why would the police take them at their word given the shooter could say the exact same?