[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Here's the issue with your analogy. Vehicles and Booze have primary uses. When not used, as intended, then they can have negative consequeneces. However, their value, especially that of a vehicle, is very important in our culture and society. Guns have a single purpose. They are for killing. The guns used in the CT murders were used as they were intended to be used, for killing. The car or alcohol in your analogy were used as they are not intended to be used. That is the disconnect.

I say we take a note from Australia. In 1996 they had a massacre, and they reacted by banning all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. After the ban Australia saw a 59% drop in firearm homicide and a 65% drop in firearm suicide. More importantly, they saw no increase in non-firearm homicides or suicides. That is real world evidence that banning assault weapons lower the murder and suicide rates in the area affected.

No one is saying that a gun ban will eliminate gun violence. It will put a hamper on crimes that are not premeditated and make it more difficult to get the type of guns that can cause massive amounts of damage in a short amount of time, especially without red flags being raised. The gun ban is certainly no silver bullet type of situation, but it is one of many steps that can greatly reduce the amount of violence we face in this country in addition to more money spent on preventitive mental health care.

Link: Did gun control work in Australia? (Has links to studies built in)

It had also dropped that much prior to the bann so what does that prove.