You would see more deaths from other violent crimes. There's no coorelation with gun bans and homicide rates:

Good point.

people like yourself should be guarding US buildings instead of an undertrained and underarmed security guard with a 300 years old revolver from a company that is whinning that it has no money.

It really would not be very hard to assure that no one has acess to a gun. Much hader to smuggel than drugs, as they are largely made of metall and size.

Why would you expect homicide rates to drop? The only thing that would drop (and has done) is the number of massacres involving guns. The things that still happen in the US on a regular basis.

Though to put that graph in perspective, even at the peak in 2003 (which is the clear distorted fact the graph is trying to present) that was a homicide rate of 1.8 per 100,000 to the US's 2013 rate of 4.5. Currently the UK is at 1.0. (if that graph continued, it would be lower in 2013 than any other part of the graph)

Isn't the "more guns" argument meant to be that once you ban guns everybody gets shot and crime spirals out of control because there are no good guys with guns to shoot the bad guys?

If you're trying to ban guns, then homicide better drop! Otherwise, what is the point? If there's no actual jusitification for removing freedoms, then why should that be what people want?

I didn't intentionally cut the graph short, it was just a report published in 2011. If you have something more up to date, I'd be interested in reading it.

I know you didn't cut it short :) thats what the statistics will have shown up to that point, though notice the axis upwards doesn't start from 0. This is to give you a distorted and exaggerated spike in statistics. (it would still need to be 3x taller to show the US rate)

It wouldn't have much impact on the homicide rate, it would stop innocent kids being shot in their schools etc though. That handgun ban came in after the Dunblane massacre where someone walked into a primary school and started shooting kids while they were studying.

There has not been an incident like that since. And touch wood hopefully there never will be. Other countries such as Australia have also experience the same since bringing in restrictions. THAT is the point of gun controls.

As for such as bombings, I'm not aware of any spike in those since the handgun ban came into effect??? We were plagued by them in the 80s due to the IRA terrorism. Only major one since then (and since the handgun ban) that I can really thing of was the July bombings which guns would not have done anything for in the same way they would not have helped with September 11.

...And this is where I leave this thread.

Has there been any shooter that has been shot down by a civilian ever? Is there any time that civilians with guns have been able to react to this kind of threat?
Honest question!

To be fair, they are exhillarating to shoot. I definitely get the appeal. I think it's something you wouldn't "get" unless you had experienced it as I'd always wondered what the appeal was until I fired a few.

Of course. There are several examples: 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/20/concealed-permit-holder-stops-attempted-mass-shooting-in-chicago/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.kkAZ1XyB5

I spent less than a single minute finding those and was able to find dozens of armed roberries and such that were stopped with someone that had a concealed carry permit.