So to the Era Americans is it fair to say most of people you know will go on defence mode if you even hint at the idea of gun laws? Or is just the vocal part of internet making their god given voice heard seem more than it is?
The big problem is that "gun control" is a massive open statement. Most people are open to some degree of gun control (background checks, small waiting periods ect.), but in general it usually doesnt stop there (its always "the starting point" for a lot of pro gun control people) which makes a lot of people hesitant to agree on any control at all in fear of what it may (and most likely will) lead to. Background checks leads to red flag laws which leads to magazine limits which leads to assault weapon bans which leads to licensing which leads to registration and the list just keeps going. This has always been the case in the now heavy gun control states which started out pretty loose as any other state but now have 100+ gun laws in their books. If something happens its usually a case to throw on another half dozen laws.
Their argument for that will ALWAYS be: "Well there are so many guns in circulation already, banning them now won't do any good because then only the 'bad guys' will have them."
In terms of the "bad guys" this can potentially be true in this day and age. Most firearm homicides (and technically mass shootings) tend to be gang and drug related which typically have a lot of cash on hand. Cash that can be used to procure firearms from all over and not just ones that are already in the system, but ones that can be made. We live in the era of the internet which makes finding out how to do anything incredibly easy. 3d printing is taking off, cnc machines are getting cheaper and cheaper, common materials are getting cheaper and stronger per year, you have polymer 80's and 80% receivers already being out there. Going forward if someone really wants a gun, they are going to get it and if they have to go that extra mile it may actually lead to worse outcomes considering its technically easier to make a machine gun than a semi-auto.
That said tighter restrictions could cut down on most other types of gun deaths. Suicides, accidents, heat of the moment type incidents, school shootings ect. Some of those like suicides and domestic incidents arnt a guarantee, but you could save a decent chunk of them. However another problem persists in that of personal protection. Criminals are not just going to give up their guns in the several decades it would take for those 300-500million guns already in circulation to dry up and it might not make a difference either way with how much easier its going to be to make them. So with that criminals are largely going to still have what they have while making it more difficult for average people to get them. Even without the firearm aspect the US is still an immensely violent nation in every regard with something like a 2-3x non-firearm related homicide rate compared to the UK. Giving a 110lbs women less options to defend her self or children, the more elderly, younger teens, people with physical conditions and just anyone who may not be able to properly fend off a physical attacker (especially when something like 40% of home invasions include more than one perpitrator), less options could very well lead to more problems down the road.
IMO pandoras box is already open. The best way to tackle gun violence is to tackle the reasons people turn to wanting to pick up a gun. Better/easier mental and physical healthcare options, tigher wage gaps with better job security, helping intercity communities, more emphasis on fathers in the homes and even putting more of an emphasis on proper firearm safety (adds and notices, free or funded safety classes ect.). As long as guns are around there will always be some level of gun violence, but theoretically you wouldnt even need to touch anything about them to treat a significant portion of the problem.
