The entire ban is simply to drive a cultural wedge between between identities - you can be a pot-smoking hippie, or a gun-totin' traditionalist, but don't you dare have be more nuanced than that.
There has never been an empirical basis for such a ban with respect to public safety.
Granted, operating a weapon under the influence is a stupid idea. Just as it is with respect to driving. I mean, before now, we may as well just ban alcoholics from getting drivers licenses. At least then there'd be more statistical evidence to back it up, and there isn't a constitutional protection for the right to drive a vehicle.
In all fairness I'm not sure there's been much research on anything related to guns and safety at least in the US. The would violate the NRAs right to scare the shit out of the public into buying more guns.
This is from the anti-gun John Hopkins University itself, and they report that the highest amounts of gun-related crimes happen to black people, especially black males. Even if this is including police encounters, the number is still overwhelmingly black-on-black violence.
Of course, though, they decided to go with percentages instead of totals, when comparing states, because it benefits their narrative. Of course way less populated states will have a comparatively higher ratio of gun-related crime, especially when they allow permitless carry and have stand-your-ground laws. Defensive gun use will sway the percentage to a higher degree than gang shootings in NYC will, if we're going per-capita. I personally have lived in a permitless-carry state, in probably the third biggest city for 3 years, and I haven't heard a single gunshot. Even including police. Yes, that's anecdotal, so feel free to discount it. But I have firsthand experience in the place the media tries so hard to paint as a battleground. I feel very safe, even knowing I'm walking past at least one person concealed-carrying every time I go in a store.
The CDC took down a study showing an incredible number of estimated defensive gun use situations nationwide a little while back because some anti-gun foundation complained that it was too beneficial to the pro-2A movement. You may be able to find it online still.
Something I find interesting: using the FBI's "Crime Data Explorer" online tool, if I use California and Wyoming (as the example JHU picked as a permitless-carry warzone), it's pretty much the same top offenses and weapons used (top being bladed weapons). And murder is reported as 0 in Wyoming, as well as negligent manslaughter. Clearly not the crazy warzone they want you to think it is. All the same crimes are committed in both Cali and Wyoming primarily with blades, while Wyoming is very gun-friendly. And the top crimes committed via the top weapons are all crimes that aren't solved by banning guns anyways. And honestly, I'd rather be in a gunfight than a knife fight. Those get messy and bloody quick. Nobody really walks away from a knife fight. It's commonly said that "one dies on the scene, and the other dies in the hospital if they make it there."
NRA membership has been in decline for a while. Meanwhile gun ownership is through the roof, especially first time owners. Huge numbers of them identify as "liberals" and wouldn't be caught dead at an NRA convention.
alternatively, there are organizations that focus on individual users of firearm (possibly because NRA has become too manufacturer-specific and FFL-centric):
The entire ban is simply to drive a cultural wedge between between identities - you can be a pot-smoking hippie, or a gun-totin' traditionalist, but don't you dare have be more nuanced than that.
There has never been an empirical basis for such a ban with respect to public safety.