Gun Control/Rights Thread

[downzy]

47 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Homicide rates are down which is what I am assuming Soul Monster is talking about, given that this conversation started off in a thread about a mass shooting. Besides which, all violent crime rates are down over the last decade, so it's incorrect to assume that only better surgical care is what is being shown up in the declining firearms murder rates:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls#overview

No where in the statistics you link to does it break it down gun-related violence.  It simply shows that violent crime rates have dropped, but that tells us nothing about violent crime rates that involve firearms.  The statistics I pointed too in my previous provided by the CDC post does depict an increase gun violence ("CDC, the rate of nonfatal gunshot injuries has risen about 20 percent since 2001, from 22 incidents per 100,000 people to 27 incidents in 2013").  If nonfatal gunshot injuries are up, but homicides are down, are we expected to explain this phenomena as a result of people becoming worse shots or using less powerful guns?  Something doesn't feel right with that diagnosis.  Far more likelier is that the ability to treat gun shot wounds has improved dramatically over the past several decades.  

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

No where in the statistics you link to does it break it down gun-related violence.  It simply shows that violent crime rates have dropped, but that tells us nothing about violent crime rates that involve firearms.  The statistics I pointed too in my previous provided by the CDC post does depict an increase gun violence ("CDC, the rate of nonfatal gunshot injuries has risen about 20 percent since 2001, from 22 incidents per 100,000 people to 27 incidents in 2013").  If nonfatal gunshot injuries are up, but homicides are down, are we expected to explain this phenomena as a result of people becoming worse shots or using less powerful guns?  Something doesn't feel right with that diagnosis.  Far more likelier is that the ability to treat gun shot wounds has improved dramatically over the past several decades.  

Another plausible explanation is that we have become vastly better at first responder response times, which can be critical for many gun shot wounds.

[PappyTron]

7 minutes ago, downzy said:

No where in the statistics you link to does it break it down gun-related violence.  It simply shows that violent crime rates have dropped, but that tells us nothing about violent crime rates that involve firearms.  The statistics I pointed too in my previous provided by the CDC post does depict an increase gun violence ("CDC, the rate of nonfatal gunshot injuries has risen about 20 percent since 2001, from 22 incidents per 100,000 people to 27 incidents in 2013").  If nonfatal gunshot injuries are up, but homicides are down, are we expected to explain this phenomena as a result of people becoming worse shots or using less powerful guns?  Something doesn't feel right with that diagnosis.  Far more likelier is that the ability to treat gun shot wounds has improved dramatically over the past several decades.  

I didn't say that the link was going to show the breakdown of gun-related violence. I did say that all violent crimes are dropping and provided the link to it.

As for your assertion that nonfatal shootings are up, we would need to have access to additional data, because all that the CDC's statements shows is that treatments of gunshots are up, but that says nothing to the rate at which people are being shot, only the rate at which they take themselves, or are taken, to the emergency room. Likewise, without full access to the CDC's entire research one cannot draw a solid conclusion from their data. That being said, with the increase in modern medicine gunshots are imminently treatable, so I have zero issue with the belief that people who would have died in yesteryear are living today. However, we don't know at what rate those who would have died are now living, but we do know that violent crimes have fallen dramatically (hence the link) so unless there is hard data to show that gun crimes alone are bucking this trend, one cannot profess the belief that emergency care alone is the cause for falling gun-related deaths and not additional, or more important, factors.

[downzy]

12 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

I didn't say that the link was going to show the breakdown of gun-related violence. I did say that all violent crimes are dropping and provided the link to it.

As for your assertion that nonfatal shootings are up, we would need to have access to additional data, because all that the CDC's statements shows is that treatments of gunshots are up, but that says nothing to the rate at which people are being shot, only the rate at which they take themselves, or are taken, to the emergency room. Likewise, without full access to the CDC's entire research one cannot draw a solid conclusion from their data. That being said, with the increase in modern medicine gunshots are imminently treatable, so I have zero issue with the belief that people who would have died in yesteryear are living today. However, we don't know at what rate those who would have died are now living, but we do know that violent crimes have fallen dramatically (hence the link) so unless there is hard data to show that gun crimes alone are bucking this trend, one cannot profess the belief that emergency care alone is the cause for falling gun-related deaths and not additional, or more important, factors.

One of the statistics quoted above states what you're claiming.  But the other clearly states that non-fatal gun injuries has increased; nothing to do with those simply being treated.  Read it again: "the rate of nonfatal gunshot injuries has risen about 20 percent since 2001, from 22 incidents per 100,000 people to 27 incidents in 2013."

But even the statistics only stated that more people are being treated for gun-related injuries, wouldn't logic dictate that more people are being shot?

[PappyTron]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

One of the statistics quoted above states what you're claiming.  But the other clearly states that non-fatal gun injuries has increased; nothing to do with those simply being treated.  Read it again: "the rate of nonfatal gunshot injuries has risen about 20 percent since 2001, from 22 incidents per 100,000 people to 27 incidents in 2013."

But even the statistics only stated that more people are being treated for gun-related injuries, wouldn't logic dictate that more people are being shot?

Can you explain to me how the statistics are representing people who have been shot but have not reported it or sought to have it treated? I'm pretty sure that neither the CDC, nor any other agency, has polled people on "have you been shot in the last year? If so, did you report it?". To go from 20 to 22 per 100,000 there has to be a system of reporting: who is doing the reporting and how are they counting those who are not seeking treatment?

But even the statistics only stated that more people are being treated for gun-related injuries, wouldn't logic dictate that more people are being shot?

Specifically? No. You would also need to know whether there have been changes in police policy for how gunshot victims are treated; whether there has been a change in how health care coverage for these types of injury are applied; whether reporting methodology has changed; whether the CDC's data is broken down in to sub categories such as self-inflicted gunshot wounds; what the rates were like before they started to climb (they had been dropping by large amounts, and steadily, by the CDC's own account, during the 1990s, so a reversal is not unusual). The list of possible factors is not short, although, again, I have no issue with increases in medical care playing a factor is survival rates (though a different subject to this post) as it would be sad, I am sure that you'll agree, if our ability to save people had not increased in the last 20 years.

[downzy]

16 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Can you explain to me how the statistics are representing people who have been shot but have not reported it or sought to have it treated? I'm pretty sure that neither the CDC, nor any other agency, has polled people on "have you been shot in the last year? If so, did you report it?". To go from 20 to 22 per 100,000 there has to be a system of reporting: who is doing the reporting and how are they counting those who are not seeking treatment?

 

 

Specifically? No. You would also need to know whether there have been changes in police policy for how gunshot victims are treated; whether there has been a change in how health care coverage for these types of injury are applied; whether reporting methodology has changed; whether the CDC's data is broken down in to sub categories such as self-inflicted gunshot wounds; what the rates were like before they started to climb (they had been dropping by large amounts, and steadily, by the CDC's own account, during the 1990s, so a reversal is not unusual). The list of possible factors is not short, although, again, I have no issue with increases in medical care playing a factor is survival rates (though a different subject to this post) as it would be sad, I am sure that you'll agree, if our ability to save people had not increased in the last 20 years.

I'm not aware of their methodology, but they could be basing it off police/incident reports.  But more than likely, they're basing it on those who are receiving treatment.  Yet, it's all moot.  The point I'm making is that though violent crime is down, gun-related injuries have actually increased (between 2001 and 2014).  That's it.  You stated that gun violence is lower than it has been in decades.  Perhaps fewer people are being murdered by guns (though the murder rate overall is down), more people are actually getting shot.  That's not a drop in gun violence.  

EDIT: I was curious whether increase in the number of people shot offset the drop in people being killed.  According to FBI statistics, the homicide rate dropped from 5.6 people killed per 100k to 4.5 in 2015.  That's a drop of 1.2 people.  But as CDC statistic shows, the incident rate of people being injured by guns went up from 22 incidents per 100k to 27 incidents per 100k.  They don't fit exactly, as the homicide rate isn't broken out by cause of death.  

[PappyTron]

41 minutes ago, downzy said:

I'm not aware of their methodology, but they could be basing it off police/incident reports.  But more than likely, they're basing it on those who are receiving treatment.  Yet, it's all moot.  The point I'm making is that though violent crime is down, gun-related injuries have actually increased (between 2001 and 2014).  That's it.  You stated that gun violence is lower than it has been in decades.  Perhaps fewer people are being murdered by guns (though the murder rate overall is down), more people are actually getting shot.  That's not a drop in gun violence.  

EDIT: I was curious whether increase in the number of people shot offset the drop in people being killed.  According to FBI statistics, the homicide rate dropped from 5.6 people killed per 100k to 4.5 in 2015.  That's a drop of 1.2 people.  But as CDC statistic shows, the incident rate of people being injured by guns went up from 22 incidents per 100k to 27 incidents per 100k.  They don't fit exactly, as the homicide rate isn't broken out by cause of death.  

Sorry, had to pop out.

I stated, to SoulMonster, about gun violence being down, based on a mass shooting, in another thread; that was about lives being taken and nothing else, as was relevant to the discussion found there. That is a different issue to this. In this thread I made the statement that, across the board, violent crime is down over the last decade, though you wish to state that reported firearms related incidents are up. I asked what methodology was used by the CDC to arrive at their conclusions, and whether there has been a wider change that may have an effect on the numbers shown. If violent crimes, in virtually all categories, have fallen, but reported gunshots have risen, then we need to look at the reasons why because it is highly unusual for a single sub-category to buck such a marked and wide trend. However, the Department of Justice's statistics directly contradict the CDC's and state that non-fatal shootings, as reported, have fallen between 1993 and 2011 (falling by about half during that time). So, like I said before, there are huge numbers of factors in play and it is hard to arrive at a full conclusion in brief posts on a message board, although the facts that we do know to be universally accepted as true are that since the 1990s gun ownership is up and that violent crimes across the board are down; correlation, but I will not state causation as, like I said, it would be naive to pin a hat on such a solid position.

I feel that I have to repeat the following every time this threads come up, as I feel that nobody ever remembers them; I am not against stricter gun regulation in the broadest sense, and am all for closing loopholes such as gun shows etc.

Before I forget, the DOJ's findings, in contradiction and direct opposition to the CDC's:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

[downzy]

41 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Sorry, had to pop out.

I stated, to SoulMonster, about gun violence being down, based on a mass shooting, in another thread; that was about lives being taken and nothing else, as was relevant to the discussion found there. That is a different issue to this. In this thread I made the statement that, across the board, violent crime is down over the last decade, though you wish to state that reported firearms related incidents are up. I asked what methodology was used by the CDC to arrive at their conclusions, and whether there has been a wider change that may have an effect on the numbers shown. If violent crimes, in virtually all categories, have fallen, but reported gunshots have risen, then we need to look at the reasons why because it is highly unusual for a single sub-category to buck such a marked and wide trend. However, the Department of Justice's statistics directly contradict the CDC's and state that non-fatal shootings, as reported, have fallen between 1993 and 2011 (falling by about half during that time). So, like I said before, there are huge numbers of factors in play and it is hard to arrive at a full conclusion in brief posts on a message board, although the facts that we do know to be universally accepted as true are that since the 1990s gun ownership is up and that violent crimes across the board are down; correlation, but I will not state causation as, like I said, it would be naive to pin a hat on such a solid position.

I feel that I have to repeat the following every time this threads come up, as I feel that nobody ever remembers them; I am not against stricter gun regulation in the broadest sense, and am all for closing loopholes such as gun shows etc.

Before I forget, the DOJ's findings, in contradiction and direct opposition to the CDC's:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

That's very strange because if you go to this website:

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

it shows a very different picture, with gun-related injury rates being higher in 2014 than in 2001.  

Gun ownership is up in terms of total aggregate of guns, but not on the basis of total number of Americans owning a gun:

http://qz.com/518477/charted-this-is-the-gun-ownership-minority-in-america-that-has-a-big-impact-on-national-policy/

What we're seeing is an increase in the concentration of gun ownership, which is different than more American owning guns.  The reality is that fewer and fewer Americans, as a percentage of the population, are gun owners or live in a household with a gun present.  

[PappyTron]

17 minutes ago, downzy said:

That's very strange because if you go to this website:

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

it shows a very different picture, with gun-related injury rates being higher in 2014 than in 2001.  

Gun ownership is up in terms of total aggregate of guns, but not on the basis of total number of Americans owning a gun:

http://qz.com/518477/charted-this-is-the-gun-ownership-minority-in-america-that-has-a-big-impact-on-national-policy/

What we're seeing is an increase in the concentration of gun ownership, which is different than more American owning guns.  The reality is that fewer and fewer Americans, as a percentage of the population, are gun owners or live in a household with a gun present.  

Which is the point; two mass studies, with the same available data, arriving at markedly different conclusions as to the rates of firearms related injuries over time. That is why I asked you if you knew the CDC's tallying methodology, and why I stated that drawing a conclusion from it (or any study) is beyond the scope of a conversation on a hair metal discussion board. The only points that we can state as being universally accepted as accurate, is that there are more guns in private ownership than ever before, and that violent crimes, across the board and in particular homicides, are down. Yes, I am aware that the ownership increase is an increase in concentration of firearms per household.

Given that any study that you care to link to can be countered by an equally high-level study showing the opposite to be true, is there anything else on the subject that you'd desire to discuss? I wouldn't mind, truth be told, actually talking, rather than simply throwing research papers at each other which is all that ever happens in these threads.

[Billsfan]

On October 17, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Len B'stard said:

Also, as an impartial, learn to recieve insult, get over the insult and address the point behind, learn to call each other cunts people, its liberating

Yes, cunt is a beautiful word. I just randomly yell it from time to time, especIally at  women drivers!!

[Len Cnut]

3 minutes ago, Billsfan said:

Yes, cunt is a beautiful word. I just randomly yell it from time to time, especIally at  women drivers!!

How judicious of you!

[Billsfan]

3 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

How judicious of you!

Why thank you sir! I mean cmon, get off the road and get me my damn sandwich already!

[rock4eva]

[PappyTron]

9 hours ago, rock4eva said:

Well, that is patently a lie. There was a mass shooting at Monash university just a few years later, as well as another in Hectorville, and another in Sydney... That doesn't even mention that since the gun ban the murder rate has remained flat, with it going up in some years and down in others. Then there are armed robberies, the number of which committed each year is no different than before the ban.

[downzy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

[liers]

If we ban guns, people will still get them. Cocain and heroin are illegal and plenty of people have access to those. Most people won't hand over their guns either. Isis could just as easily find another way to attack us. They want us to ban guns because they know citizens would riot. They're causing chaos by using guns. They're dividing us.

[downzy]

1 hour ago, liers said:

If we ban guns, people will still get them. Cocain and heroin are illegal and plenty of people have access to those. Most people won't hand over their guns either. Isis could just as easily find another way to attack us. They want us to ban guns because they know citizens would riot. They're causing chaos by using guns. They're dividing us.

So true, we see riots in Australia and the UK all the time. 

Again, few are proposing an outright ban. The issue is how rights of gun owners can coexist with the right to not get shot. Freedom to versus freedom from. 

[rock4eva]

5 hours ago, PappyTron said:

Well, that is patently a lie. There was a mass shooting at Monash university just a few years later, as well as another in Hectorville, and another in Sydney... That doesn't even mention that since the gun ban the murder rate has remained flat, with it going up in some years and down in others. Then there are armed robberies, the number of which committed each year is no different than before the ban.

Monash University wasn't a public mass shooting, he killed 2 people at his school. He wasn't shooting from room to room killing people like the school shootings in the USA. It was still bad as he had 6 guns no doubt illegal. However he didn't have a pump action shotgun that fired rapidly as they're banned here so he was overpowered by students. If he had a pump action gun it could have been much worse but our laws stopped him owning one.

Hectorville was a family killing of 3 not a public mass shooting. Of course that was shocking but not exactly the same as the nightclub.

I don't know what you mean about Sydney unless you mean the Lindt Cafe siege where a maniac who should never have been on the streets after killing his wife (our justice system stinks) and he made it a terrorist act due to his ISIS flag etc. It wasn't a mass shooting but 2 people did die sadly.

So that's 7 people since 1996 & I do recall a farmer who was depressed due to the farm failing who killed his wife, children & himself.

It's nothing like we see in America, can we recall the mass shootings in USA since 1996? Sandy Hook, Boston, Columbine, Virginia Tech, San Bernadino, Pulse nightclub,Aurora movie theatre (I feel guilty sneaking a sandwich into the movies to eat) yet America wants people to be allowed to take in guns? I've only listed where large numbers have died, if you look at mass shootings where numbers are under 10 I could add heaps more like the Temple, Fort Hood etc. It's way beyond my way of thinking I'm afraid. However it's not a total ban on guns, people are allowed to have guns for sure. I don't know which ones are banned as I couldn't identify one gun from another apart from big or small but it's the pump action, self loading & AK47 type that's been banned. Armed robberies are usually fake guns, baseball bats or knives.

Scroll down these & see if I'm being fair.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/06/australia-hasnt-had-a-mass-shooting-since-1996/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

^^^^^^^ only from 1996 onwards^^^^^

If you own a gun why don't you google to see if what you own is legal in Australia? I'd be interested to know if you all did that & find that you might have legal Australian guns as none of you sound like people who would commit such a shocking crime. You seem to have them more for protection so is your crime rate worse than ours?

 

 

 

 

[rock4eva]

2 hours ago, downzy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

Wonkblog? Seriously?

 

[PappyTron]

@rock4eva I would class a shooting on a university campus as being just as public as a shooting in a cafe or in a nightclub. Saying that the shooting at Monash is "different" because he "wasn't going room to room" is disingenuous to the facts at hand: that a man went on a shooting spree, in Australia, after the gun ban that Josh Butler was claiming has stopped all such occurrences. Australia has low gun violence before the ban and it has low gun violence after the ban, but the levels are not markedly different; they were already trending downwards before Port Arthur and the subsequent legislation.

I fully agree that America has a problem with gun violence, especially spree killings, in relation to the rest of the world, but I do not agree that banning certain types of firearms will make an overwhelming difference, as those firearms were readily available long before the explosion in media coverage of these types of shooting sprees. Lots of countries have cultures/groups with just as many firearms as America does (factoring in individual ownership rather than gun total) yet no other country has such constant issues with spree killings (I think that we should discuss just these and not murder rates as a whole) and with gang related killings. So, unless we believe that Americans are somehow different to every other group (which nobody here does) then we have to assume that the underlying issue is to be found elsewhere.

On the subject of whether my firearms would be legal in Australia the answer is no, as they are all AK-74/pump action/semi-automatic pistols, save a few.

[SoulMonster]

5 hours ago, PappyTron said:

I fully agree that America has a problem with gun violence, especially spree killings, in relation to the rest of the world, but I do not agree that banning certain types of firearms will make an overwhelming difference

It might not make an overwhelming difference -- that really depends on the severity of the gun control -- but as long as it makes a significant difference, i.e. less people die or are injured, then it should be implemented.

[rock4eva]

5 hours ago, PappyTron said:

@rock4eva I would class a shooting on a university campus as being just as public as a shooting in a cafe or in a nightclub. Saying that the shooting at Monash is "different" because he "wasn't going room to room" is disingenuous to the facts at hand: that a man went on a shooting spree, in Australia, after the gun ban that Josh Butler was claiming has stopped all such occurrences. Australia has low gun violence before the ban and it has low gun violence after the ban, but the levels are not markedly different; they were already trending downwards before Port Arthur and the subsequent legislation.

I fully agree that America has a problem with gun violence, especially spree killings, in relation to the rest of the world, but I do not agree that banning certain types of firearms will make an overwhelming difference, as those firearms were readily available long before the explosion in media coverage of these types of shooting sprees. Lots of countries have cultures/groups with just as many firearms as America does (factoring in individual ownership rather than gun total) yet no other country has such constant issues with spree killings (I think that we should discuss just these and not murder rates as a whole) and with gang related killings. So, unless we believe that Americans are somehow different to every other group (which nobody here does) then we have to assume that the underlying issue is to be found elsewhere.

On the subject of whether my firearms would be legal in Australia the answer is no, as they are all AK-74/pump action/semi-automatic pistols, save a few.

 

Thanks @PappyTron for your answer. I just wanted to say that gun violence wasn't going down prior to Port Arthur. We had Hoddle Street where Julian Knight killed people driving down the road one night, a man went beserk in a Telstra building in Melbourne killing people before plunging out of a window to his death below, Milperra Park bikie gang massacre on Fathers Day, there were lots of mass shootings prior to gun control.

Then if you know anything about Melbourne & the Carl Williams and Moran families you'll see we spent a long time watching these 2 families & friends shooting each other to death until now there only exists one member of 2 families who's in jail where hopefully she stays. Before that we had the Walsh Street killings of the policemen & the family involved in that is another story in itself. All drug related but I think corrupt lawyers & police had a lot to do with this too. Illegal weapons but the general public weren't targeted. Being a crime buff it's all very intruiging to me, but the terrorism is very frightening stuff.

Thanks again for your explanation.

[PappyTron]

29 minutes ago, rock4eva said:

 

Thanks @PappyTron for your answer. I just wanted to say that gun violence wasn't going down prior to Port Arthur. We had Hoddle Street where Julian Knight killed people driving down the road one night, a man went beserk in a Telstra building in Melbourne killing people before plunging out of a window to his death below, Milperra Park bikie gang massacre on Fathers Day, there were lots of mass shootings prior to gun control.

Then if you know anything about Melbourne & the Carl Williams and Moran families you'll see we spent a long time watching these 2 families & friends shooting each other to death until now there only exists one member of 2 families who's in jail where hopefully she stays. Before that we had the Walsh Street killings of the policemen & the family involved in that is another story in itself. All drug related but I think corrupt lawyers & police had a lot to do with this too. Illegal weapons but the general public weren't targeted. Being a crime buff it's all very intruiging to me, but the terrorism is very frightening stuff.

Thanks again for your explanation.

I know that Australia has a fairly solid problem with biker gangs and I have heard about them using things like hand grenades, I'm pretty sure, which is severe. It would be interesting to know what percentage of murders in Australia are gang related, because in America it is a huge contributing factor, and if you took those away, or even just a large percentage of them, America would actually rank pretty middling for homicides/violent crimes/gun crimes.

[SoulMonster]

USA has by far the highest guns per capita in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) at 1.13, That's more than one gun per citizen on average. The runner-up, Serbia, has 0.76 while Norway at 10. position has 0.31. If only gun prevalance was a deterninant for gun deaths (suicides, homicides and unintentional), then we would expect slightly more than 3 times as many gun deaths (per capita) in the US than in Norway. The reality is that there are 10.54 gun deaths in the USA per 100k citizens while 1.75 in Norway, which is 6 times as many. So, obviously, gun prevalence is not the entire explanation for all the deaths in the USA. We knew that already. What other reasons are there?

We don't have much gangs in Norway, we take better care of the mentally ill (I believe), we have less inequality, less poverty, and less of a macho gun culture. I believe these reasons, and others, surely, contribute to the lowered number of guns deaths in Norway. 

So how reduce the number of gun deaths in the USA? What is the simplest way of achieving this? The way that takes less time and costs less resources? How stop more than 90 Americans being killed by guns every day? I can't escape the conclusion that less guns permeating the US society would be the quickest and simplest way of reducing the number of deaths, if political roadblocks could be circumvened to get approval of this. Of course, this must go hand in hand with looking at alternative collaborating factors.

[liers]

13 hours ago, downzy said:

So true, we see riots in Australia and the UK all the time. 

Again, few are proposing an outright ban. The issue is how rights of gun owners can coexist with the right to not get shot. Freedom to versus freedom from. 

Most want assault weapons banned and background checks. I think they're going to have a hard time getting the assault weapons banned. I'm all for the second amendment, but i see peoples point that there's not much reason to own a gun capable of killing hoards of people in minutes.

That still doesn't help the fact that guns will still be able to get in the hands of terrorists. There'll be a bigger market for assault weapons if they're banned too. Say AFD was banned in the US and there was no way to download it. The only way you could hear it ever again was through the banned cd. Would you turn your copy into the government? No. If you had an extra copy, and someone offered you a shit ton of money for it, would you take it?