Wow, 17 page thread that I didn't even notice until now. Didn't expect to see a topic like this here.
I think I'm in the minority right now in thinking that the current gun laws are actually pretty good in most states, and I wouldn't advocate any significant change either way.
When debating this it's important to establish that the US is not Scotland, Australia, or any other country where stricter gun laws could feasibly eliminate the availability of firearms. The US has a long tradition of private gun ownership, and any debate that ignores this fact or expects it to change is utopian.
That said, the "arm everyone" argument is even more utopian. We're not about to become a martial society overnight and even if we did, the average person has neither the proper mindset nor the will to kill someone regardless of training. Studies as far back as the 40's suggest that this also applies to people in life or death situations. I think it's irresponsible to encourage people to do something they aren't suited to do. Right now firearms are usually carried by people who have an interest in them and some rudimentary training; I'd like to keep it that way. We're not nearly unified or homogenous enough to hand everyone a gun and expect a consistently responsible outcome. The fact that areas with more guns have less crime is demographics, not the guns themselves.
But these are just the talking points of partisan hacks, let's look at some outcome that might exist in the real world.
1. Reinstatement of the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban.
A piece of legislation that had no notable effect on violent crime statistics in spite of what Dianne Feinstein would have you believe. It's the typical legislation of something by people who know nothing about what they're trying to ban. This ban identified assault weapons by their cosmetics. It was an abysmal failure, assault weapons continued to account for about five percent of gun crimes throughout the duration of the bill. It hit its sunset provision and was allowed to expire without remark. Unless Feinstein decided to put in some range time I doubt she learned enough about guns to do anything more than make a list of scary babykiller guns to be banned.
(The scary black babykiller gun)
The level to which people are uninformed on this issue makes me feel obligated to bring this up just to show the absurdity of the public debate. The standard Twatter/Failbook argument for the masses is to ban all scary peoplekiller guns and leave only the benign deer-killing ones. This one is impossible since unbeknownst to them selective fire weapons are already tightly controlled under a separate law (I won't go into it), and an "assault rifle" without selective fire is just a semi-auto with some cosmetic and ergonomic features. The fact is the public doesn't know enough about guns to know what to ban, and neither do our representatives. No matter where you stand on this issue, this will accomplish nothing. Semi-automatic firearms are 1880's tech, they're not going anywhere.
2. Magazine capacity
Another likely outcome of the coming firearms legislation will be an attempt to control mag capacity. Basically a large magazine (30-100 is usually what they're referring to) is what allows you to keep up an effective rate of fire on a semi-automatic weapon. They'd like to make it so 10 round mags were available and 30 round mags were not. This is yet another pipe dream by people who think this is super-specialized babykilling technology. There's about as many high capacity mags floating around for most rifles as there are fish in the sea. Even if you could somehow restrict them, best case scenario is you end up with 10 dead kids instead of 20, you're controlling a symptom, not addressing the problem.
3. Gun show loophole
Some people don't like gun shows because it lets people who couldn't otherwise purchase a firearm purchase one. I won't go into this because it's contingent on enforcement of other laws.
My take on this is it's not really about guns. The people shooting people are the ones to blame, of course, but if I were to look for a culprit for the trend it would be our shit-tier media. Peroxide blondes and talking heads keep stupid, impressionable people in a state of perpetual fear where they'll believe anyfuckingthing if it fits into an idiotic narrative simplified for mass consumption. It's sensationalist reinforcement of bad impulses, and that's fine in the privacy of niche websites, but should be ridiculed in the real world instead of being embraced by media whores. I hate to go all Rorschach about this but I am convinced that if you banned guns you'd only make a dent in the bodycount, not the prevalence of senseless violence. Scotland for instance brags about how they brought down their gun crime after their big school shooting by banning guns. They're pretty quiet about their huge knife crime problem though.
This was already taken care of in my opinion in the Bill of Rights. A well-regulated militia is basically a segment of normal community-minded citizens with the proper temperament to handle weapons, and has the added benefit of already being distributed throughout the community. Arming 90 pound preschool teachers is a bad joke. I want to see more guns in the hands of ordinary citizens with the proper temperament, the kind of people who don't have extralegal authority that removes them from the local society.
