I'm curious, is the Supreme Court in this conspiracy? Because, legally, speaking, they've declared twice in the last decade that handguns and weapons primarily involved with the defense of your hearth and home are protected under the 2nd amendment. Not weapons designed to prevent the government from doing whatever the hell you think they're going to do. Not for going out and hunting even. It's in case some guy comes into you house with bad intentions.
With that being said, in my opinion, we should restrict as many weapons, and prevent as many people from getting guns as the data shows is advisable (which would mean decreases gun violence overall). Excuse the language I used, I have no interest in removing all weapons.
I can already hear everyone telling me that in the states with the loosest gun regulations, there is the least amount of violence. However when you look at the demographics, its not because of the regulations as much as the population. The states with the lowest violence tend to be Midwestern or Southern states. A largely homogeneous population, and they're ideologically similar. Then you look at places like Chicago, LA and New York; they're completely different situations.
That being said, we need to have the federal government mandate some very broad laws about who can and cannot own guns (a little more specific than now, in my opinion). They need to mandate use of the NICS, and send states a mandate to come up with their own laws, and give them a certain amount of years to reduce gun violence by whatever amount. Then the States could look at their situations, and figure out how to meet those goals.
Also, looking at the numbers and statistics on concealed carry laws, I think every state should become a shall-issue state. Concealed weapons do almost nothing but good, especially when there is a relatively strict process to obtaining them.
Lastly, I think we need to either end gun shows around the country, or introduce regulations for who can and cannot obtain weapons there.
