I agree with all of Ungodly's policies and suggest ending the gun-culture too.
I was going to bring up the gun control debate eventually, because it's one issue I think both political sides in the US are going about the wrong way. Liberals want to ban all guns, as if that will somehow address the underlying socio-economic, cultural, and psychological reasons for violence among human beings. Conservatives want unrestricted and unregulated access to all guns, as if implementing an overly simplistic interpretation of the Second Amendment and looking the other way will let the problem of violence magically sort itself out.
This might be a good time to look at the exact wording of the Second Amendment.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There are a couple of details that pundits tend to ignore. The first is the term "militia" which is defined as either part of an organized armed services in a country, or as a body of citizens organized for military service. The second is that it says, right there, that the militia must be well-regulated. This means that the government is allowed to regulate, organize, and direct groups of citizens who keep and bear weapons. In other words, it's referring more precisely to groups like the police or military. Nowhere in there does it imply a bunch of idiots running around with guns and doing whatever the hell they want.
There are reasons why neither approach from the far left or far right will work. For liberals, I would point out that laws restricting gun ownership do nothing to keep guns away from criminals, who by definition are people who will break the law to get what they want in the first place. Guns are also not the only weapon in existence, as humans have always found plenty of other ways to kill each other. Explosives, vehicles, and knives work just as well, and most households have plenty of the latter two. You don't even need a weapon to kill someone, as there are many ways to do it with your bare hands. Restrictions on guns are not going to somehow wipe away the reasons people have for committing acts of violence.
It is true that guns make killing easier, are the most likely weapon to be used in homicide, and most US citizens support measures like background checks and closing gun show loopholes. It's also true that the majority of gun owners have no intent to ever use them to commit violent acts against others. Despite the stereotype perpetuated by those open-carry lunatics, most gun owners are simply hobbyists who go to the range or collect different firearms. They want nothing to do with the NRA, and tend to support the aforementioned measures.
For conservatives, I would point out that doing nothing is just as bad as doing too much. They often claim that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." However, in a crisis situation, the average citizen is not going to know what to do. If an armed robber or mass shooter were to storm in, and then every moron with a gun whips it out and starts firing randomly, a lot of innocent bystanders are going to get killed. Then when the police arrive, if you're one of those self-deputized citizens who was trying to stop the bad guy, the police are not going to know this when then see you with your gun out, and will likely shoot you dead.
When it comes to gun deaths, a little known fact is that 2/3 of them are suicides, not homicides. Guns make it easier to kill because they're faster and cause more damage, and a person with a mental illness will not have as much time to think twice about their decision. So there are certain types of people who should not own firearms, for their own good, and a background check would allow us to identify them.
Therefore, if I were running for public office and the issue of gun control came up, here's what I would propose:
* Gun safety and responsible ownership should be a higher priority than gun restriction. People should take self-defense classes, or some form of professional-level training, if they want to own a gun for the purpose of defense. There are already programs like this, and learning any kind of self-defense would give you the discipline to know when and where it's appropriate to act. Though I would go one step further. I would offer a firearms training program, consisting of 300+ hours of drill and instruction like police and military recruits have to undergo, to all members of the public. It would be voluntary, and funded by taxpayer dollars. If they want to be the good guy with the gun, they should be taught how. This won't be 100% foolproof, but it would be a lot better than the paltry training that's currently required for new gun owners.
* Assault weapons, I wouldn't ban, because there's no practical or tactical difference between an assault weapon and a small arm gun. (Numerous mass shootings, like the VT shooting, were done with small arms.) Rather I would encourage citizens to learn how to use them properly, like above. There is, in fact, already a government funded program that teaches citizens how to use assault weapons, and it's called US military service. If you want to use an assault weapon, then go enlist.
* Establish gun courts on the state and local level, similar to what New York City did in 2016. These courts would specialize in prosecuting violent crimes committed with guns. If you use a gun to commit a crime, then you will be harshly punished and sent away for a very long time. This is not controversial. If you commit a crime, you lose your Constitutional rights.
* Crack down on the specific types of people most likely to use guns in crimes. I don't mean racial profiling, I mean behavioral profiling: Gang members, drug dealers, and organized criminals would all fall under intense scrutiny.
* Increase funding for mental health treatment programs. Very few politicians ever talk about this, or consider it important, because in our society mental illness is not considered on the same tier of severity as physical ailments. (The GOP healthcare bill, for example, had proposed slashing this funding.) Yet they will all rail about how the mentally ill should not be allowed to have guns every time there's a high profile shooting; they are quick to blame mental illness, even though statistically a person suffering from a mental illness is more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator of a violent crime. For me, it's more about stopping the gun suicides, because mass shootings are comparatively very rare.
Again though, the problem of gun violence is not going to go away until we address the causes of violence itself. It's not a matter of the specific weapons used, but rather that people are driven to use violence to get what they want in the first place.