"Gun homicides" is a pointless statistic. "Homicides" is what actually matters. "Gun massacres" is a pointless statistic. "Massacres" is what matters. This is why you incorrectly stated that "Australia had 13 massacres in 18 years pre-1996. In the 21 years since, there hasn't been one", which was (as I demonstrated) a complete falsehood. You made the mistake yet again when you said "the 17 deadliest massacres" above... and then linked me to something that involves "shooting". One of the deadliest massacres in US history was a car bomb. We also had a bigger one involving some box cutters and passenger aircraft (note the non-gun homicide rate in my chart in my previous post during 2001).
I'm not pretending that we can't influence "gun crime" statistics in the US. But I see no reason to focus on the particular weapon used in crime. If homicides go up and gun homicides goes down, that's a net loss. How is that not clear to you? Our homicide rate is falling at at least the same rate as Australia's since your gun ban, if not faster (at least until 2010, I didn't find handy charts that went further). Tell me again how much we need it... Tell me again how much safer Australia's gun ban is making it than the US...