>1.) Nobody wants to ban Firearms completely.

If this was true then please explain why the citizenry of Washington DC had to live with a gun ban for 30+ years before finally being overturned by the Supreme Court only to have the pols there ignore the ruling? While technically not a full ban since hunting rifles were still legal, their effectiveness as protection was hindered with storage restrictions.

Click the link and have a gander at the nobody's who signed on to this.
THE CASE FOR DOMESTIC DISARMAMENT
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html
There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament of the kind that exists in practically all democracies. The National Rifle Association suggestion that criminals not guns kill people, ignores the fact that thousands are killed each year, many of them children, from accidental discharge of guns, and that more people whether criminal, insane, or temporarily carried away by impulse kill and are much more likely to do so when armed than when disarmed. The Second Amendment, behind which the NRA hides, is subject to a variety of interpretations, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, for over a hundred years, that it does not prevent laws that bar guns. We join with those who read the Second Amendment the way it was written, as a communitarian clause, calling for community militias, not individual gun slingers.

>2.) To answer your question: ABSOLUTELY, murders and suicides would take an incredible drop. Just look at Australia ( although I know you'll bend the facts there too)

I have looked at Australia and Britain and Chicago and ad infinitum. What is quite clear is that when one looks at "murder and suicide" one does not get the full perspective when considering firearms for protection. Violent crime must be included as well yet is frequently left absent by gun grabbers. Also, you'll need to quantify the term "incredible" before one can properly assess your statement.