More control of guns is urgently needed, especially in areas with a high density of population. The old days of self-protection, very far outside somewhere, are gone forever. This is a world of psychological stress, disorder and insanity; uncontrolled guns add fuel on fire.

More control of guns is urgently needed, especially in areas with a high density of population. The old days of self-protection, very far outside somewhere, are gone forever. This is a world of psychological stress, disorder and insanity; uncontrolled guns add fuel on fire.

I think America is an exceptional country when it comes to guns. Possessing gun is prohibited in most countries.  U.S. pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, etc. Nowadays we have HI-TECH and can get better security via intrusion prevention and detection systems without using guns.

Dear Mahmoud,

Thank you for (one more!) interesting question, on debate.

Quite personally, as much as I agree and fully support your proposal of ZERO weapons, I should like to add that there are many other ways to perform violent aggressive acts...

Psychologic blunt wounds are definitely more difficult to treat and even more to prevent. They leave long lasting injuries.

(I think , of course, of the new WW III, with terrorist acts ...?...)

Shouldn't we then ask for ZERO AGRESSIVENESS, on behalf of the human World???

This might be obtained through better Education, since early childhood, starting at home.

I am so sorry about the civilian victims at Las Vegas, (RIP) !!!!!!!!

It is required to extremely control of guns around the world.

Regards, Emad

Very sorry about the incident at Las Vegas, RIP,,,,

Common people / common civilians should not be given an access to guns....

Guns are necessity of Army Personnel, not common citizens....

Regards

Selvam.

Some statistics: The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world, about 42% of the world's civilian guns. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women).

https://lyc-rivalain.jimdo.com/tle-gen/term-unit9-guns/debating-on-guns/

The deepest condolences to the Innocents victims of Las Vegas 

If you look at the reasons, you find that there are terrorists and countries that support terrorism behind this incident

The only solution to this violence is to cultivate a spirit of tolerance among societies as well as to reject the violence of the major powers against the innocent from the poor and stable countries because it creates hostility and intolerance

We can not forget the rule of law and justice that protects societies and does not distinguish between race, religion or belief

Dear All,

I am deeply saddened by this inhumanely attack. I express my sincere sympathy to the families of the ones who lost their lives. And I hope the injured get well soon.

I am one hundred percent in favor of gun control.

However, we should see the realities. Who is more powerful? The government officials who are responsible to change the laws or the gun lobby.

How has the US gun lobby been so successful?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35355319

We may be a little optimistic after reading this article:

How Australia beat the gun lobby and passed gun control

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/10/03/how-australia-beat-the-gun-lobby-and-passed-gun-control/

Regards,

Muharrem Keskin

Dear Mahmoud,  zero guns, zero aggressiveness.

Kind regards,

Janusheva

I agree with Violeta, if there were no guns or weapons of any kind, there would be no way to carry out mass atrocities. I am a proponent of the just peacemaking approach to problem solving.

“Guns make small men feel big.” ― Oliver Gaspirtz

“We don't have a gun problem; we have a math problem:

ZERO GUNS = ZERO GUN-RELATED DEATHS.” 

― Quentin R. Bufogle

These 14 Facts Are Crucial to Understanding Gun Violence in America:

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/14-facts-gun-violence-america/

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Gun control

For international arms restrictions, see arms control. For techniques for the safe handling, possession, and storage of firearms, see gun safety.

"Gun Law" redirects here. For the live-action television series once called "Gun Law" in the United Kingdom, see Gunsmoke.

Gun control (or firearms regulation)[1][2] is the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians.

Most countries have a restrictive firearm guiding policy, with only a few legislations being categorized as permissive.[3] Jurisdictions that regulate access to firearms typically restrict access to only certain categories of firearms and then to restrict the categories of persons who will be granted a firearms license to have access to a firearm.

Terminology and context

Gun control refers to the domestic regulation of firearm manufacture, trade, possession, use, and transport, specifically with regard to the class of weapons referred to as small arms(revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, assault rifles, submachine guns and light machine guns).[4][5]

Usage of the term gun control is sometimes politicized.[6] Some of those in favor of legislation instead prefer to use terms such as "gun-violence prevention", "gun safety", "firearms regulation", "illegal guns", or "criminal access to guns".[7]

In 2007, it was estimated that there were, globally, about 875 million small arms in the hands of civilians, law enforcement agencies, and armed forces.[a][8] Of these firearms, 650 million, or 75%, are held by civilians.[8] U.S. civilians account for 270 million of this total.[8] A further 200 million are controlled by state military forces.[9] Law enforcement agencies have some 26 million small arms.[9] Non-state armed groups[b] have about 1.4 million firearms.[c][9] Finally, gang members hold between 2 and 10 million small arms.[9] Together, the small arms arsenals of non-state armed groups and gangs account for, at most, 1.4% of the global total.[10]

Regulation of civilian firearms

Barring a few exceptions,[d] most countries in the world allow civilians to purchase firearms subject to certain restrictions.[13] A 2011 survey of 28 countries over five continents[e]found that a major distinction between different national regimes of firearm regulation is whether civilian gun ownership is seen as a right or a privilege.[16] The study concluded that both the United States and Yemen were distinct from the other countries surveyed in viewing firearm ownership as a basic right of civilians and in having more permissive regimes of civilian gun ownership.[16] In the remaining countries included in the sample, civilian firearm ownership is considered a privilege and the legislation governing possession of firearms is correspondingly more restrictive.[16]",...

Please, go to the attached website link for more details...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

Introduction The implementation of gun control in the United states is a large problem as it will take away the 2nd Amendment rights and would also stop the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals who obtain guns illegally. The right to bear arms is promised to citizens of the United States, and to put gun control into effect is to take away their Constitutional rights. Crime is very high in cities that have few gun control laws. However, the problem will not be solved by taking guns away from people who are registered and licensed to carry them.

Fore more details you may refer to the following link:

http://www.123helpme.com/search.asp?text=gun+control

In other countries with control of armament such successes would not have occurred. Free circulation of armaments is own of savage peoples.

The first lesson that emerges from Las Vegas concerns the awesome destructive power of modern armaments like the 10 weapons Paddock was reportedly found with. In the hands of even a mediocre shot, an automatic weapon (like the one Paddock apparently shot, based on audio recordings from the scene) can fire 600 or more rounds per minute. The destructive power of such weapons is limited only by their ammunition capacity. In this case, it appears Paddock fired long streams of automatic fire into the crowd, sending scores or hundreds of bullets into concertgoers’ bodies. Bullets from such weapons travel at speeds of 2,000 to 3,000 feet per second, easily covering a third of a mile. On the battlefield, these weapons are used to suppress, wound, or kill enemy troops. In the civilian world, they can quickly kill dozens or hundreds before any effective police response can occur.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/10/why_the_las_vegas_shooting_was_a_nightmare_scenario_for_police_and_security.html

The Guns cooperation companies must be more controllable of guns and put a tight restrictions for selling guns. 

Mahmoud,

I believe it is a complex issue. The premise of gun ownership in the U.S. is the constitutional 2nd Amendment right to bearing arms, which was meant that the public had the right to have firearms for the defense of the State and Country via a citizen's militia. Unlike Europe and some other parts of the world, once the Continental Army, which was composed of many regular citizens, won their independence, there was still the wild frontier to contend with, from dangerous animals to Native Americans. Self defense was paramount, thus guns continued to be part of the culture.

People will say that was then and this is now, but I think it runs much deeper. Americans have seen other countries around the world where private gun ownership was illegal and the ruling regime mistreated the citizens who could not fight back. Then there are other countries in the world where gun ownership, not to mention machine gun possession, is a common, everyday occurrence complete with violence, but the condemnation for these countries is different. Per capita, the citizens of Columbia have a much higher rate of gun death than those people living in the US.

However, the crux of the matter is that in almost every single case of mass shootings, the guns either were purchased legally by people who had no criminal record or they were purchased by people who had mental problems. In the cases of mental problems, many times the families of those people knew or suspected that they were not taking their medications.

Those supporting the anti-gun movement in the US is also bias. The vast majority of everyday shootings in this country are by criminals and gang members who have no respect for life. These people are in possession of firearms that are illegal in the US and have been smuggled into the country through various ports and across borders. In fact, a growing trend, at least in southern Louisiana, is breaking into law enforcement vehicles and even law enforcement facilities and stealing their weapons and bullet-proof vests. These are practically unpreventable things, no matter what laws and bans are legislated.

Then there is the bias in the news media. Very often the news media reports XX number of guns were found in the person's house, when the story had nothing to do with gun violence, such as someone forgetting their child in a hot car. However, the new media uses the very presence of guns in the home to make it appear that the person was a bad human being capable of a much more heinous crime. Then there are the news media "experts" themselves. One expert consulted on TV said that Paddock used "sub-machine guns" to kill all of those people in Las Vegas. This was totally untrue and only shows how much of an "expert" he really was, but most of the general public does not know that what he said was untrue. Paddock used long guns (assault rifles), which is completely different from sub-machine guns. He was firing from hundreds of meters away. Sub-machine guns have a very limited range before the bullet is reduced to a more non-lethal velocity. Another writer for a major world-wide news organization wrote an opinion piece about banning semi-automatic weapons. He said that the US banned the sale of semi-automatic weapons from 1994 to 2004 and that resulted in a decrease in gun deaths. That was completely false. The 1994 ban was for semi-automatic assault-style rifles and sub-machine guns only, not all semi-automatic weapons as was implied throughout his article. When contacted and asked to correct the inaccuracies, he has deemed not to reply or edit his story.

The National Rifle Association is the seven-headed dragon. They have become so radical in the past 30 or so years that I, coming from a strong NRA-supporting family, want nothing to do with them. There are things that could be done to curb occurrences like what happened in Las Vegas, like reduced clip sizes, tougher background checks, nation-wide background checks, and a national mental illness database. However, the NRA, the mental health system, and other organizations fight these restrictions and databases.

When it is all said and done, the old adage is still very true, a gun ban will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals and anyone wishing to harm a lot of people can and will use other methods. Norway had very strict gun laws, but a citizen shot and killed 85 children.

I strongly recommend for anyone interested in the statistics of gun violence in the various countries of the world to download the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC) Global Study on Homicide 2013.

The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution purportedly grants an inalienable right for Americans to bear 'arms'.

In 1776 'arms' was a squirrel gun in 2017 it includes a thermonuclear warhead.

In Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 US  (2016) the Supreme Court declared that the 2nd amendment was not restricted to the 'arms' that were available at the end of the 18th century nor was it confined to those goverened by the rules of war.

Does anyone agree that all private American citizens have the right to possess (bear) weapons of mass destruction including thermonuclear warheads and nerve gas?   

You remember seeing cowboys and Indians fighting in the movies? It was the new settlers versus the old settlers. That was not too long ago and the guns remained in the hands of many and they want to keep them in case the Indians come attacking again?! Of course not:  7 million Indians died in those encounters according to some and there are hardly any Indians left in the USA.

Now the gun industry is huge, it cannot be dismantled any time soon; the national economy will collapse! So, be patient, there would be many many Las Vegas-style  attacks to come.

Recently, we were travelling in the USA and were looking for a place to eat in a small town, evening-time. We could not find any restaurant besides fast-food, however, most of the open stores were gun stores with very attractive signs for "easy purchases" with little or no down payments, etc

I could not forget that experience! Frankly, it is scary!

In an ideal world, even cops shouldn't be armed, let alone give gun to ordinary untrained people. For example, the police in England don't carry guns. But in USA more than 20,000 people are we killed a year with guns of cops, civilians owning guns, etc. When we have police and security performing their role to protect the people then there is no need for self equipped.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Gun control means control. It means control for the government and the government starts controlling the people.

                                                                           ----  Luke Scott 

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

We have to face the fact that meaningful gun control has to be a part of homeland security.

                                                                                  ----  Jeh Johnson 

Mahmoud,

Re. When we have police and security performing their role to protect the people then there is no need for self equipped.

In a perfect world, yes. One incident that comes to mind is a shooting on Bourbon Street in the French Quarter of New Orleans in 2014 that wounded 9 people. Those people were wounded in crossfire when 2 criminals decided to shoot at each other across a busy, tourist-filled, pedestrian street. At the time of the shooting there were a minimum of 25 police officers in the district, 15 of which were on Bourbon Street, and at least 5 officers were within 1/2 block of the incident. A few of those officers were within sight of the shooters and that did not deter them from pulling guns out and blasting away.

I think that this is something that at least Europeans cannot understand. In the United States we have gangs that care nothing for human life and will use any means to kill the members of other gangs, even if they know they will die in the process. Several gang members in New Orleans were interviewed by criminal sociologists and asked what they would do if a fellow gang member was killed by a rival gang. Individually, each one said they would get revenge. When asked if they would still seek revenge even if they knew they would be killed in the process, every single one of them said yes and that their deaths would then be avenged. In south Florida the Latino gangs are so out of control that there have been several cases of children's birthday parties and family gatherings being gunned down because gang members thought it was a rival gang party. In several major cities in the U.S. groups of people walking down the sidewalk have been shot at because gang members think its a rival gang. These incidences make the news, but usually do not get the coverage like the high profile cases.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana. So far this year there have been at least 10 incidences of people shot and killed while sitting in their cars, apparently by gangsters who thought they were rivals. Many of these people were innocently waiting to meet someone or picking someone up when they were shot.

Do these things happen in Europe on a regular basis?

Would armed citizens have helped or prevented the Bourbon Street shootings. Probably not and there possibly would have been more injured, if not killed. However, law enforcement cannot be everywhere all the time, and even then they might not be able to prevent something from happening. In many ways, though, in relation to the lawlessness of the gangs in the U.S., its still the Wild, Wild West.

JAG

There should be gun co trol became out there we have a lot of mad men especially those frustrated by the society in which the live.

Dear James. Gangsters are everywhere, Mafia, Yakuza, ...But is not better to police handle the case instead or ordinary citizens? With more than 300 million guns in the hands of citizens in USA, police is powerless.

The situation in the US now requires an urgent measure to be taken in order to forestall future occurrences. What had happened in the past might be a tip of the iceberg compared to what will happen in the nearest future.

I guess in USA  gun rights advocates form a powerful lobby that politicians fear to cross. Otherwise they can solve the problem.

That means guns are needed in USA “to keep a tyrannical government in check” ! Why they cant have a direct democracy? Anyway, in order for government to exist, it has to have power itself

Yes, there should be ZERO guns or greater control over carrying gun by civilians. Civilians should leave crime prevention to the Police who are properly trained and equipped to investigate and handle crime. Guns owners engaging in self-defense are taking the law into their own hands. Guns must be banned because they are the cause of many deaths amongst the people of the world today. If guns in general weren’t that accessible and it wasn’t that easy to get a hold of one, most of these senseless violence like recent one in Las Vegas, USA, claiming lives of 58 innocent people, would not have occurred.

The nonsensical idea that guns are needed to keep the government in check is simply an excuse. Only a seriously paranoid psychotic would actually believe the government is coming to get them and only a deluded one would believe they could actually stop that if it happened.

It might be an idea to suspend the gun owning rights of anyone prescribed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and to take their guns into safe keeping. SSRI's are the common denominator in these shootings and thier role is well understood in this phenomena.

SSRi's, prescribed for anxiety have a disinhibitory effect on many who take them. This is responsible for the increased suicide ideation and the increase in actual suicides in patient prescribed them. The dishinibitory effect is experienced before the anxiolytic effect.

Inhibition and fear of consequences prevents us from doing many things we might otherwise do. An anxious disinhibited person with a firearm is a time bomb waiting to go off.

The American government is making great efforts to curb terrorism in the country and elsewhere. The weapons laws are not touched.

Between 2001 and 2013, 3380 people were killed by terrorism in the USA, but by the use of firearms 406,496 people in the same period (Süddeutsche Zeitung, 7/8 October)

According to a recent study, the United States’s gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries. Deaths in one year per million people (see attached chart)

Source: Guardian graphic | Source: WHO European detailed mortality database; CDC Fatal Injury Report; gunpolicy.org; Statistics Canada; ONS/NISRA/Scottish Government. Notes: Data for 2013 except France (2011), Ireland and Italy (2012), UK, US and Canada (2014)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-you-do-gun-control

The UK, Australia, Japan and Germany have all taken measures to reduce gun homicides. Can the US learn anything from them?

It needs to be understood as well....

"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

-- George Orwell

Is important to understand the roots of the Second Amendment, which had to do with a very specific moment in history, and in a country in which several issues, like slavery, were of great importance and were supposed to be managed locally. Also, it is interesting that the debate never includes the first words of the amendment, which explicitly says that the purpose is to form a well regulated militia. Probably the national guard fulfills that role already. And of course, it is also important to consider the role of manufacturers and traders interested in keeping a dynamic market for guns ongoing.

On the other hand, there is a huge amount of evidence that demonstrates a strong correlation between gun ownership and lethal shootings. Examples like people killed accidentally by toddlers are very telling, as much as mass shootings perpetrated with legally obtained guns. It is not the only reason, of course. There exist others like social fragmentation, high degrees of paranoia in certain people, and so on. But it is one that should be addressed. Zero gun is a policy that would work in that sense, although it will be very difficult to achieve. There could be exceptions for hunters, with specific types of guns and careful regulation and control. This would probably be the most effective way to deal with this problem in the short term, although it should be complemented with a serious effort to reduce the levels of social conflict that could end in violence.

Do not allow those prescribed SSRI's to possess guns.

Take them off them...period!

History also shows us that two of the most democratic nations on earth have no rifles on the wall. The most gun free nations on earth are the UK and Japan, with very low rates of gun ownership (very restrictive laws) and almost no gun violence (in 2006, when the US had 11,000 gun murders, Japan had 2 and UK had 40).

More controls, exceptions and more exceptions do not work. An outright ban will work, but don't expect it any time soon.

It is easier to target weapons manufacturers and find them something else to manufacture like solar panels and wind turbines, before you even talk about restrictions on gun possessions.

Dear Colleagues, Good Day,

"We don't have a gun problem; we have a math problem: ZERO GUNS = ZERO GUN-RELATED DEATHS."

— Quentin R. Bufogle

Fully agree that more control is needed, though I fear that there's a long way ahead.

The USA seems to be a country where people can, in all seriousness, argue

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people! Thus, guns shouldn't be more controlled."

and at the same time want to terminate the Nuclear deal with Iran on the grounds of "National security".

For me, this is a contradicting world-view par excellence.

Dear Artur Braun,

Thank you for your valuable comments on this issue. You mentioned: "... America does organize itself. It is quite safe and good country ,,, " If you say so.

Personally, I've never been there. All I read about shooting was what I read in Internet or saw in the News. I still believe it is not wise to have 300000000 lethal weapons in the hands of citizens. Police should bring security and law enforcement by ordinary citizens (with various education, personality, capability, intention, ....) should be kept to minimal or zero.

Yes. But where there are guns, there will inevitably be gun violence ...

Stricter gun controls will result in less gun deaths. In a country like Japan, where it’s virtually impossible to own a gun, there are essentially no gun deaths. Whereas, in the US, where there are over 300 million firearms, 8,855 people were shot and killed in 2012 (and guns there account for about 70% of all homicides).

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14340378.Twenty_years_on__the_truth_about_Dunblane_and_gun_laws/

Trump is dumber than the proverbial. He supports 'anyone' exercising their 2nd amendment 'rights' but wants to "fire the sons of bitches" who chose to exercise their 1st amendment rights.

He knows zero about the US Constitution. Freedom of expression is the mainstay of the whole of the American Way!

Daddy's shotgun ain't gonna save you when that's gone.

Dear C. Lewis Kausel Thanks for being realistic. US should adapt Japan's policy or gun control on this issue if she wants less tragic incidence, i recommend.

C.

I did not think for one minute that you were a supporter of crazy gun laws. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

America is well-known as a civilized society, with the tendency to use weapons by solving individual problems. In the history of the US violence plays a strong role, there are sustainable theories about this fact, that people don't have confidence in the government and state or in the protecting arm of the law. They have confidence in a weapon only, especially after such a shooting we saw in Las Vegas. The system is orientated in arresting, punishing and lock away people for many years. That's all.

... tendency to use weapons by solving individual problems

“A sum can be put right: but only by going back till you find the error and working it afresh from that point, never by simply going on.” ― C.S. Lewis

We cannot talk people into accepting the future if they haven’t been there ...

“TACKLE the ROOT CAUSE not the EFFECT.” Haresh Sippy

A Theory on What Motivated Stephen Paddock and Why There’ll Be More of Him in the Future

by John Ziegler | 2:27 pm, October 2nd, 2017

Whenever a tragedy of the magnitude of the horrific Las Vegas massacre occurs, there is always rampant speculation which usually turns out to be at least mostly wrong. It seems to me to be very possible, however, to piece together what really happened with regard to the motivation of the killer, Stephen Paddock.

On the surface, his profile seems baffling to us, mostly because it does not fit what we expect in this situations. He had no terrorist connections, no overt political agenda, had lived a perfectly normal and rather successful life, was an old white guy, and had no apparent history of mental illness, or even criminal activity.

Read Full article from:

https://www.mediaite.com/online/a-theory-on-what-motivated-stephan-paddock-and-why-therell-be-more-of-him-in-the-future/

The recent gun violence in California has raised high concern over firearm homicides by civilian-owned guns. The zero or gun control policy for civilians need to be reviewed considering, societal structure, cultural misogyny, and mental health issues as well as gun laws. Gun violence by civilians has many variables. The Iceland, despite being one of the nations with the highest rate of firearms, has a startlingly very low violence rate as there is little class distinction, less illegal drugs and a low population, all of which contribute to the low crime rate.

I would prefer Zero guns for civilians and also for police/militars when it is possible. The peace is a value which should not put in question.

Hello Doctor is a wonderful question but it is not within my specialty wish you luck

Hello Mahmoud,

There is a debate in outlawing the technology that enables a semiautomatic weapon to fire faster. NRA has supported it, which might reflect a shift in certain gun ownership policies.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/12/upshot/a-bump-stock-ban-is-popular-but-experts-have-their-doubts.html

The horrifying thing is that there is still not unifying motive that explains his behavior, just speculation at the moment and there is no way to predict who will commit such attacks and when.

There should be a shift to treat gun violence as an epidemic. The CDC is attempting to do this, but NRA lobbying typically quells such attempts.

Common sense gun regulation may help, but the NRA promotes the slipperly slope fallacy that gun regulation is just a hop, skip and a jump away from the government taking your guns, which explains the rise in gun purchases in the wake of most American mass shootings.

I wish I could answer this thoroughly, but there are always more questiosn than answers in regards to this issue.

All best,

Sam

"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?" - Ernest Gaines

Yes, people pull the trigger - but guns are the instrument of death. Gun control is necessary, and delay means more death and horror. - Eliot Spitzer

You can have all the gun control laws in the country, but if you don't enforce them, people are going to find a way to protect themselves. We need to recognize that bad people are doing bad things with these weapons. It's not the law-abiding citizens, it's not the person who uses it as a hobby. -Michael Steele

Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. - Ayn Rand

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/gun.html

Dear Colleagues, Good Day,

"Gun crime is a major cause of fear and distress throughout the UK. The problem is deeply entrenched in a wide range of social and cultural factors and therefore not an isolated issue."

----- Diane Abbott

Gun encourages (stimulates) for crime, better to control gun by government policy.

Dear Colleagues, Good Day,

"It's not a gun control problem; it's a cultural control problem."

----- Bob Barr

“The more money you spend on guns, the less money you spend on people! More weapons, less happiness; more guns, more misery!” ― Mehmet Murat ildan

I think answer should be ""yes"" because a gun is used only to control the mass upsurge of the tolerant civilians who are fighting for their right rather to control miscreants.

A breakdown or loophole in the federal background check system could have allowed the gunman who killed 26 people in a Texas church Sunday to buy an assault-type rifle last year, even though he had been discharged from the military for domestic violence, legal experts said Monday.

GUN LAW LOOPHOLE MAY HAVE ALLOWED TEXAS CHURCH SHOOTER DEVIN KELLEY TO BUY ASSAULT-TYPE RIFLE BY JOSH SAUL

http://www.newsweek.com/texas-shooting-fbi-background-checks-domestic-violence-gun-military-703356

Excellent article in the NYT.

The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.

Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns. From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American

An American is about 300 times more likely to die by gun homicide or accident than a Japanese person

American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

The United States has 270 million guns and had 90 mass shooters from 1966 to 2012.

No other country has more than 46 million guns or 18 mass shooters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Dear Colleagues, Good Day,

"You can have all the gun control laws in the country, but if you don't enforce them, people are going to find a way to protect themselves. We need to recognize that bad people are doing bad things with these weapons. It's not the law-abiding citizens, it's not the person who uses it as a hobby."

----- Michael Steele

The world is flooded by firearms, it seems impossible to be able to realistically assume that all firearms can be collected and destroyed. Many areas of the United States, Chicago as an example, have very strict firearms laws, but the city also has extremely high rate of violence resulting in homicides through the use of firearms. It is also not an issue of laws related to firearms, but more so the enforcement in the United States. I realize other countries, such as Britain have very strict gun laws, while other nations, the possession and ownership of a firearm appears to be a social expectation.

US: School shooting survivors demand stricter gun laws

Hundreds of people rally in Florida for stricter gun control laws in the aftermath of a deadly school shooting.

The 18th school shooting so far this year, the attack has prompted another debate over gun control in the US.

About 300 school shootings have taken place across the US since 2013, gun control advocacy group Newtown estimates.

Uniquely American epidemic of school shootings. We only hear such news from US.

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/02/school-shooting-survivors-demand-stricter-gun-laws-180217193222713.html

This post may be interesting: GUN. CONTROL. Dear America, here’s how other countries stop mass shootings

Research shows that countries with fewer guns have lower homicide rates. Even US states with fewer guns have fewer homicides; in a landmark 2002 study, analysis of data from 1988 to 1997 showed that states with “high” gun ownership had three times the rate of homicide than states with few guns. A decade later, a 2013 study found that every percentage point increase in gun ownership corresponded to a 0.9% higher risk of gun homicide. Countries and states that legally limit overall gun ownership simply have fewer gun deaths.

Source: https://qz.com/1212809/compare-us-mass-shootings-and-gun-control-to-germany-china-russia-switzerland-and-australia/

These four countries have nearly eliminated gun deaths - here's what the US can learn By Chris Weller, Business Insider (Sunday 18 February 2018)

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-eliminated-america-learn-japan-australia-uk-norway-florida-shooting-latest-news-a8216301.html