Misleading title. All scientific studies including THIS ONE comes up negative when it comes to gun laws and reducing violence or homicides and actually suggest possible harm.

The goal of gun-control is to promote a safer environment by reducing violent crime and homicides. Using "Gun Crime" stats begins with the assumption that guns are the problem and excludes any other possible explanations for the problem of violent crime and homicides and therefore it's use is deceptive and misleading. If gun violence/deaths go down, but violence/deaths by other means goes up to make up for the reduction, or even EXCEED the original statistics, the goal of a safer environment is NOT met and it tells you that the problem was not guns in the first place.

If stricter laws had been in effect in Connecticut and Nancy Lanza had not been able to buy any guns because she had a very unstable person living in her house, 27 people would still be walking the earth. What concerns me the most is that Adam tried to buy some guns, but couldn't because he was 20, not 21. If he had been 21 and they had just checked his background for criminal content, would he have been able to buy guns? That is where the main problem comes in. Background and psych checks. A lot of the one-on-one shootings happen between two people who know each other. Not much we can do to stop a lot of that because, as long as you are able to buy guns at gun shows and from private dealers without going through a background check, there will be shootings. It's going to be hard to fix all of the problems, but I honestly believe that all of the mass shootings could have been prevented with a little common sense.

What we seem to be pursuing, or for which we seem to be hoping, is for all violence, murder, crime, etc., to come to an end. We (not all of us) seem to think that by making it illegal to have a firearm will help to bring that to a reality. But we already have taken measures to have the law as a means of preventing those types of actions. Yet, people do it anyway. There is, and always has been (unfortunately), an element within society for whom the law is of no concern. This is why it is of utmost importance that we do NOT try remove a weapon of defense from the LAW-ABIDING public. Law-abiding people are not the problem. It is those who already turn their nose up to the law who are the problem, and who will only be a worse problem if their potential victims are rendered even more defenseless by our own law.

In regards to the mass shootings; they are a horrible tragedy, for certain. But are they, alone, justification for disarming an entire nation of some 320 million people? If they are of such grave concern, then why aren't we giving more focus on some very serious common denominators, like psychiatric drugs, which are handed out like candy in the present day and time? Look at the connection between each and every shooter in these events and see what drugs they had been taking... LEGALLY PRESCRIBED.

Therein lies the problem.