With the assault weapons ban we saw a marked decrease in homicide due to assault weapons. After 2004, when i was repealed, that number went even higher than it was before. Since then we have seen more mass shootings than any other time in this country's history. The leader in firearm homicide is the handgun which should be banned as well. Banning both would make access to both types of weapons extremely difficult for average criminals. Many say "look at drugs..." but this is a false equivalency because the production and distribution methods for firearms and drugs are radically different. Also, most of the guns in Mexico are smuggled from the U.S. With a ban in the U.S. Mexican cartels would also struggle with obtaining firearms since firearm production is extremely expensive as well as requiring knowledge of firearm engineering.
With mass shootings become a daily thing and everyone treating each shooting as no longer a big deal anymore, its like the U.S. is okay with shooters walking in to a public place or a school and start shooting up those places. We don't need more firearms for protection, we need less firearms for assault. I'm not saying that guns should be completely banned, but the process to get a gun should be harder and more difficult so it is more difficult for anyone to get a gun. There are much more regulations to get a car than are to get a gun. I suggest that everyone should get a mental evaluation test and prove that they are mentally stable before a gun can be purchased. The types of guns that are sold should be limited as well. Having semi-automatic rifles or any full-auto weapon should be banned. Perhaps limiting the number of guns to a household should be put in place so kids don't steal their parents' guns without any notice. That is how kids that shoot schools or other people get those guns, they get them from their parents without notice. As for giving teachers guns, NO. That is just more ways for a theft and someone has a gun. Instead, up or add more security at schools so someone who is trained can stop any shootings from happening.
Adding more guns to our already bad gun problem is like pouring gasoline to a fire that's already burning, It'll just make the problem worse. Regulating is the best way to keep both sides happy and have less shootings happen.
The argument "there are too many restrictions" would suggest that there are laws on guns that impinge on the normal operation of society in America. By saying 'no', it suggests what I am voting for is that "no, there are not too many restrictions". What I am in fact advocating is the idea that "no, there are not enough restrictions".
Current gun laws in the US are already fairly lax. It is fairly easy to purchase and keep guns as well as ammunition in most communities. Which means there are people (who are unpredictable creatures at best) living in close proximity to each other with the means to wound with deadly force.
The simple availability of guns in neighborhoods is of course not to blame for the frequent gun violence. Switzerland has a very good gun-crime track record - a mostly empty one, largely owing to the fact that, their gun-owners are first trained militia, and gun ownership requires multiple forms and identification and the process is repeated to purchase ammunition. Other countries with low gun crime numbers (and low fatalities when gun crimes do occur) tend to be ones where actual gun ownership is restricted, and the general population does not have easy access to firearms.
It really comes down to the two methods of gun-crime prevention/reduction: allow fewer people to have guns, or place heavy restrictions on ammunition sales and gun purchase, both combined with the owner/user of firearms having prior training.
In the case of America, the ability to own guns seems to come first and cannot be argued. It also has the issue of a more diverse and vast population than most other gun-owning developed nations. Greater regulation and obligation on the part of gun owners is probably the easiest method for general gun ownership and close-quarters living to be 'safe'.
Fewer regulations would go directly against this logic. Free ownership of guns with easy access to ammunition and no regulations on concealment and caliber in neighborhoods would most likely lead to guns being involved in more conflicts. I also leave you with this thought: a conflict between people that was always going to happen whether or not a gun was involved would surely end better in general if a gun was not involved. For one thing, it would make it safer for a good Samaritan trying to stop a crazed would-be-gunman who instead had a knife.