At the risk of being polarizing, that's already a false assertion. If fewer people have guns, there will arguably be fewer gun crimes, but that depends entirely on which people still have them.
If 100% of law abiding citizens' guns were to evaporate tomorrow, that doesn't make us any safer, as it still leaves possession of guns in the wrong hands.
Ignoring that though, I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out that people can already legally produce weapons at their home and amass their own 'secret arsenals' with readily available technology (a drill press, $200 on Harbor Freight). The ATF allows for the purchase of what's referred to as an 80% firearm, which means it's a block of metal in the shape of a gun that simply hasn't had its trigger group milled out. A $200 drill press and a $100 jig allow me to currently manufacture a large number of firearms for personal use, so long as I don't manufacture them with the intent to sell.
This might make it somewhat easier, and future generations of it almost certainly will, but at least for the moment you can rest assured that the printed product is vastly inferior to the firearms I can already manufacture in my garage and are not more convenient to make.
If 100% of law abiding citizens' guns were to evaporate tomorrow, that doesn't make us any safer, as it still leaves possession of guns in the wrong hands.
That seems overly simplistic. How many people that shoot people were — before the shooting — law-abiding citizens? Probably lots.
Of course it's simplistic, as is the notion that less guns make us all safer. For the most part though, while there's no way to prove that a lawful citizen today won't become a criminal tomorrow, crime is largely perpetrated by known criminals.
Put more simply, guns are a complicated issue. Eliminating all guns from the planet wouldn't solve all crime, nor would arming everyone on the planet. As a pragmatist, I find it hard to blame the hammer for the actions of the carpenter wielding it, but that seems to be so often the case when guns are involved.
My complaint is spurred by how extremely often it seems that anti-regulation sentiments are expressed in forms like "doing x wouldn't do any good" or "doing x wouldn't solve the entire problem", when in fact doing these things well and in good measure might do a large bit of good and nobody sensible is claiming it'd solve the entire problem. These hyperbolic phrases have an effect on the logical bounds of the conversation and encourage binary thinking, easy, satisfying answers, and polarization.
That's only in the presence of proof either way, of which there isn't any.
The 'common sense' legislation that's been proposed may or may not help the problem, but there is no guarantee that either would occur. It's been proven over and again that there's no single bit of legislation that would have prevented the Newtown massacre, except for any legislation that would have prevented anyone in Adam Lanza's sphere of influence from having any firearms or weapons whatsoever. Further, considering the aim of the current crop of legislation is aimed at preventing firearms categorized as 'assault weapons' from sale, which account for a miniscule percentage of crimes, it seems misdirected.
More to the point though, is whether or not firearm legislation does anything for the good. Criminals vastly prefer unarmed victims. Making it such that less of the populace is less armed might sound like a good solution, but has not proven to be.
Kennesaw, GA is an extremely strong counterpoint. In 1981, they enacted a law encouraging every household to own a gun. Between the year the law was passed and the following year, crime had dropped something like 80%. In the 25 years that followed, they were able to celebrate the township's 25th anniversary of being murder free. Perhaps more interestingly than that is that it didn't prevent crime at all, but seems to have displaced it rather effectively. Crime around Kennesaw, GA is higher than crime in Kennesaw, GA, and is even higher than Georgia at large. This suggests, to me at least, that criminals will still be criminals, and crime will still occur, but where criminals know there is an armed populace, they'll seek out greener pastures.
Further, most mass killings occur in "gun free zones". The Aurora, CO theater shooter bypassed a number of closer or larger theaters to seek out one further from his house that specifically banned guns from being held on the premises. We can't ask him, obviously, because he's dead, but this suggests that he sought out the area where he was likely to go longest without being stopped, and also suggests that law-abiding citizens not intent on performing crime, generally obey the law, as there was nobody there armed to stop him.
So, while I don't necessarily begrudge you the complaints you have, that doesn't necessarily indicate that regulation would, in fact, do any good whatsoever, and could actually contribute to the problem.
Another counterpoint, is that one of the least likely demographics to commit any form of crime, but especially armed crimes, are people registered for concealed carry.
>How many people that shoot people were — before the shooting — law-abiding citizens? Probably lots.
That depends on your definition of lots. The vast majority of gun homicides occur during the commission of another crime. Most gun homicides can be directly related to drug crime.
If you don't have a concealed carry permit, in most states, you're already committing a crime by carrying a concealed loaded gun around with you (there are exceptions--depends on the state).
Do some research, look at the number of concealed carry permit holders convicted of gun related crimes--in most states it's a handful each year.
If 100% of law abiding citizens' guns were to evaporate tomorrow, that doesn't make us any safer, as it still leaves possession of guns in the wrong hands.
Ignoring that though, I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out that people can already legally produce weapons at their home and amass their own 'secret arsenals' with readily available technology (a drill press, $200 on Harbor Freight). The ATF allows for the purchase of what's referred to as an 80% firearm, which means it's a block of metal in the shape of a gun that simply hasn't had its trigger group milled out. A $200 drill press and a $100 jig allow me to currently manufacture a large number of firearms for personal use, so long as I don't manufacture them with the intent to sell.
This might make it somewhat easier, and future generations of it almost certainly will, but at least for the moment you can rest assured that the printed product is vastly inferior to the firearms I can already manufacture in my garage and are not more convenient to make.