A couple of points. I might say that I am not especially engaged in guns or no guns. I put a hundred rounds down the range an hour ago: I’m OK with guns per se. My problem is with people. Guns are easier to control than people. And out of control people in an environment with little control over guns is a bad mix.
A recurring argument in various forms is that other things like cars and knives and even spoons and baseball bats can be used to deadly effect. The main reason the point is irrelevant (although true) is that there is no codified right in the US (or anywhere else so far as I know) to use cars, knives, spoons, baseball bats or just anything except ‘arms’. Thus, legislators are able to set and enforce what laws they see fit for cars, knives etc and adjust those laws as required. However the codified right to bear arms stops the legislature from making such laws in connection to guns if it may impinge ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms ’.
If the Bill of Rights gave ‘the right of the people to keep and bear cars (or knives, or baseball bats, or cobras, lions, or whatever)’ then I would expect those thigs would be making the streets dangerous given there coujld be few laws aroud those things.
Also, the assertions that gun controls would not result in fewer deaths need supporting evidence. The contrary view has some evidence. For those interested in an example of increased gun control preceding marked reductions in gun deaths, Australia provides one. Gun deaths have been more than halved in ten years, yet guns are still available under licence (but not for self-defence, and there is no need for that snce even crooks are reticent to be caught using a gun).
This is a summary of an article that may be of interest (link follows):
“…As the US once again struggles with the issue of gun control, the success of John Howard's 1996 laws banning semi-automatic weapons in Australia has been raised in the American debate.
‘The New York Times has referred to Australia's gun laws as a "road map" for the US, saying that "in the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings - but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-17/us-urged-to-consider-australia-gun-laws-example/4431262
One anti-gun lobby presents these stattistics, note the drop since the late 1990s. I cannot vouch for the source or the perfection of the numbers, but the reduction in gun deaths is real. But, rifles (not semi-auto) are still readily available for target shooting, hunting and for farmers and pistols for competition use with waiting periods and checks applied.
