You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
Instead of focusing on the guns themselves, which there are too many of, a solution could be restricting the sale of bullets. Limiting bullets to those with hunting licenses for example, and giving it time, could reduce existing guns to useless pieces of metal, unless people make their own bullets?
There are so many guns in the United States already, so it would be almost impossible to regulate them all.
We could take away all the guns, then start regulation.
Guns are a part of American culture and by taking guns away from Americans would be taking away a part of the culture.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits such an action.
The amendments are not static
This would take too many hours to complete. With countless employees and with many probable procedural problems. Not to mention that this would requite all Americans to be willing to give up their guns.
That time spent is well worth the lives it could save.
This type of weapon seizure has already occurred in Australia with the gun buyback scheme after the Port Arthur Massacre, where the Australian government bought all the firearms owned by their citizens and changed the law to disallow gun ownership by the common populace (with exceptions).
No matter how good The State's regulation is, eventually a corrupt, evil government will arise. When, not if, it happens, the citizens are defenseless against the Total Power of the State that acquires a monopoly on force. Historically, gun deaths are then counted in the Millions, not Thousands.
Technology is shifting the balance of power in favor of the state, and because our memories are so short on what has already happened in real life, we cannot underestimate how easily and totally a group of bad actors can subvert the state and by extension subvert a defenseless population, forever.
Not forever. Nothing is forever in government. Just as good governments can erode, bad governments can and have numerous times.
The state has weapons decades beyond guns available to it. Guns will not provide an effective resistance to a population against an oppressive U.S. in possession of police and military weapons and gear. Therefore gun control is ineffectual.
Besides, I think the O.P. meant for the discussion to be limited to whether gun control would bring gun violence down, and not open to the question of whether it would increase the likelihood of an oppressive gov't takeover and people's personal opinions on that.
Because United State citizens wouldn't tolerate what has happened to France.
Those type things happen in America.
Orlando Night Club,
You seem to tolerate them quite well
All of those places are "Gun Free Zones" so get off the graves of children.
Switzerland allows it's citizens to own guns and it is one of the safest countries on the planet.
Correlation or causation?
Criminals usually wouldn't care if they were going to commit crime (like robbing a bank, for ex.) about breaking a separate crime, due to them being criminals, therefore making gun control only negatively affecting the upstanding citizens who want to stop crime by using guns. Gun control is useless.