Low Key Lysmith:
The problem is that America as a society is flawed. There will always be guns in the hands of the wrong people. It is a problem that we have created as a nation and now we need to figure out a way to live with guns in our society.
I think that's a realistic outlook. But it does raise different questions: and important ones. If the gun aspect of the problem is too many bad guys having too much access to too many guns that can kill too many people quickly and efficiently, then one way of thinking about it is to consider two basic pathways out of the poo: arm everyone and shoot it up, or start a long and difficult process of disarming the bad guys.
The former leaves more dead good guys that bad guys (ie: bad guys shoot first and shoot more); the latter limits what guns good guys can have too. In other words, the staus quo and two opposing alternatives all suck. Which road forwad sucks the least? I suppose that's the question to be asked and answered (I would suggest the answer lies somewhere other than the text of the second amendement.)
I don't think that putting them only in the hands of the bad guys is a reasonable or safe solution.
No, of course its not. There are a whole lot of societal issues to fix too, as you rightly point out. It's not just about guns. But letting good guys carry guns in the street and have assult rifles at home gives bad guys more access to guns (ie: stealing them), more reason to carry a gun and more reason to shoot first and furious at the first sign of danger. I think that's true because it's the experience in other places and it makes practical sense.
The only way to end gun violence is to eradicate guns altogether, on a global scale.
Maybe elimination of gun violence is impossible. Maybe a more realistic aim would be to cut the rate of gun violence / death substantially.
An interesting exercise might be to step back from the situation a bit and consider all the possible ways of cutting the death by gun rate in the US by, say, half over 20 years? With all options on the table including changes to the law, what specific measures could plausibly lead to the death toll being halved and at what social and economic cost? Then consider if the costs are worthwhile given the expected gains.
