Indeed, and that's out of date and it's time it changed.
No it doesn't. That's like saying 'There's a house with 4 people living in it, and 100% of the people have guns, and they haven't killed each other, so that's proof that high gun ownership doesn't cause gun deaths'.
There are many more...
You're mixing statistics. 'The whole of Alaska' - the population of Chicago is several times that of Alaska, and in a more confined space, so it's hardly surprising there are more deaths.
I don't disagree with your general point about gangs though, just the stats you're using.
No, they didn't need to have guns until there was a war, and then they were given some. Now they're not at war, they don't need them again. Also, guns were the weapon of choice for that war - things have moved on and their guns won't help them much if their government starts bombing them with jets.
The French could have just armed the yanks if they weren't armed already (the French did help them). We had the Napoleonic wars shortly after, we weren't really going to be fighting the Americans all through that.