See: There's a reason i posted it. It's to demonstrate how incredibly easy it is to create something to take a human life, and simply removing 1 form of common killing device will open the way for others to take up the slack. As for the reduce in deaths by guns, yes it did decrease after they were banned. The majority of the reduction was suicides, however (now people jump in front of trains to fuck up everyones day), and i'd say at least 1/2 of the homicides moved from guns to knives after guns were banned. The number of people going out and shooting other people still stayed roughly the same, because people who pre-planned that sort of thing won't care about owning an illegal gun. Would banning guns change snap decision shootings? Sure. But violence will be violence, regardless of the weapon, and restricting the sale of firearms in the US wouldn't reduce the number of gun related deaths anywhere near enough to make it actually effective, and then there's the flipside of it maybe even increasing homicides due to only the robbers/home invaders having guns. What's the percentage of gun killings done by family members/close friends? I'm guessing pretty high. If those people snapped and couldn't access a gun, they'd just grab a knife. If the person doesn't know they're being attacked, a knife is even more deadly than a gun once you ignore hydrostatic shock. With the sheer amount of guns in the US, i get the feeling that putting restrictions on guns would make firearms be about as hard to get as weed - everyone knows a guy who can get you some, and anyone who would use a gun responsibly would be inconvenienced by the laws while the criminals maybe have to rob another couple people the make up the extra cost. If there was a way to guarantee that all the guns in the US would be removed all at once, it might work. But there will always be ways through the system, and the drug traffickers will simply move to guns due to all the money they could make.