That is a bad analogy, as all of your examples are criminal acts. Owning a gun in an of itself is not a harmful criminal act. Just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean they are going to harm others with it, but someone who would use a gun to harm others will get that gun anyways. The only ones without guns will be those who could use the gun to defend themselves, or collectors, enthusiasts, sporters, or otherwise general responsible gun owners who would be being punished because of the deeds of a few.
Can guns be used to kill people? Yes. So can knives. Should knives be illegal? So can cars. Should motor vehicles be illegal? Matches and lighters can be used to start fires. Should matches and lighters be illegal?
I may agree that civilians have no need for fully automatic assault rifles, but to use this incident, and others like it, to outlaw guns and piss on the rights of responsible gun owners everywhere is irrational and irresponsible.
People can drown going to the pool, should that be illegal as well?
In some good news, however, to change the subject - that man shot that is a friend of one of my friends - well she reported to me today that he is home with his family. I don't know anything about the extent of his injuries or anything, but I can at least report that one victim is returned home to their family.