Let's see how the handgun ban worked out in the UK... now obviously banning "assault weapons" doesn't mean jack (Viriginia Tech shooter: armed with 9mm and .22lr handguns) when the murderer is the only person armed with a firearm which can be reloaded in a matter of seconds i.e. any modern handgun. This is an article from the sporting shooters association of australia (I can't use an American article because hey every gun owner in the US just has dick insecurities and that explains it all away) The figures used are from UK's Home Office which keeps crime statistics among other things.
SSAA - Evaluating Britain’s handgun ban
Anyone who didn't want to read the article: it definitively shows that after handguns were banned, there was an increase in robberies, robberies with firearms, homicides, and overall violent crimes involving firearms.
Correlation doesn't imply causation, you say? Here's a correlation the UK DIDN'T see: a reduction in violent crime including gun crime after the gun ban.
The UK's handgun ban didn't prevent the Cumbria shooting which killed 12 (not including the psycho) and injured 11. Instead of an "assault weapon" he used a .22lr and a shotgun. Is the handgun ban responsible for reducing the number of mass shootings (which btw make up the overwhelming MINORITY of all shootings)? It would be absurd to say it did since prior to the Dunblane Massacre which prompted the handgun ban, there had been ONE mass shooting- the Hungerford massacre. Something which occurs infrequently like mass shootings (in the UK anyways) can be seemingly banished by anything from gun bans to prayer in school and for a time it would seem to work... until disaster struck again. The question is should we use the same knee jerk response which didn't lower the UK's relatively low murder rate, and expect it to work for our higher murder rate? Fuck no.
These psychos want a pedestal and it's no coincidence that public killings from celebrity stalker/murderers to mass shootings all became more and more common as the television became more and more popular. News agencies have to report on things like this, but they don't have to give any information about the killer. No lingering shots of the killer's "arsenal." No discussion of his "meticulous plans." No pictures of the killer, not even his name. If you're serious about preventing these mass killings, this is what has to be done. It should be illegal for any news agency or ISP to allow true information about the killer to be circulated... in the same way it's illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater (isn't there any other analogy I could use instead?) The 1st amendment can be "reinterpreted" in the same way the Brady Campaign wants to "reinterpret the 2nd. If any information about the shooter leaks on the net in spite of these precautions, internet users should take it upon themselves to spread disinformation (preferably negative and hilarious) which will bury real info.
Not trolling, if anyone has a better idea which they can back up with statistics / logic, please share.