That does jive with what I've read/heard but, I'm more concerned with the effects of the legislation. How has it lowered incidences of gun-mediated homicide or other firearms violence? Is it actually true that you haven't had a mass killing by gun since the legislation passed?
Yes, there's been zero massacres since the gun restrictions (compared to averaging one a year in the decade before). There's been one attempted massacre (2 deaths) since, which resulted in further background check laws and further weapon restrictions.
Both total homicides and homicides using guns have dropped (gun homicides went down by about 60%, with no corresponding increase in other types of homicide).
The number of police who died from shootings was also halved compared to the previous decade, and they've remained at this low.
Robberies in general were already on an upwards tend in 96, which continued to increase afterwards, but a decade later in 06 they'd gone back down to the same level.
Regarding the 2nd amendment, allowing citizens to bear arms in order to defend against tyrants... surely the only way to ensure this is to either disarm the military to the same level as the citizenry, or arm the citizenry to the same level as the military? Surely this was feasible when the document was authored, in the age of muskets and cannons, but how does this work in the age of drones and smart bombs and tanks and javelin missiles?