Gun Control
Hand guns are designed, marketed and sold for a single purpose: to kill people.
Gun control is still a tough issue, however: does limiting people's freedom to own guns result in a benefit to society high enough to warrant this move?
Unfortunately, this is far from clear. There are statistics to support the argument that more gun ownership makes for more killing; there are statistics to support the argument that more gun ownership makes for a ``safer'' society (where ``safer'' can mean either less violent crime or less property crime).
It is tempting to point to the insanely high homicide rates in the US as compared to every other first-world country as proof that gun ownership makes for a murder-bent populous. However, the US also has extremely spotty health care coverage (for a first world nation) and income disparities higher than any other industrialized nation. Perhaps these factors make the population more likely to resort to violence.
Perhaps also the tendency in the US (and to a lesser extent in Canada as well) to regulate away sex and nudity while practically embracing death and violence in mainstream and alternative media is to blame. Although perhaps a bit of a digression, it seems ludicrous that one can view hundreds of thousands of incidents of graphic violence on prime-time television, yet seeing naked people is taboo, and sex is right out.
It is illegal to be nude or top-less in public, yet we can go to any number of establishments and watch people beat the fuck out of each other. Insane? You bet.
Does this contribute to a more violent society?
A popular phrase of pro-gun folks is, ``guns don't kill people, people kill people''. Well, sure, but it's a lot *easier* to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife. It is also a lot easier to accidentally kill someone with a gun -- something which appears to happen quite frequently.
Yea, well, so what?
I don't think people should own guns.
This doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns; I just don't think they should.
My feelings aside, though, there is -- at the very least -- a perceived public safety issue with guns (and especially hand guns). People must demonstrate competency in order to drive cars or planes around in public; guns should be treated with even more care, given that they're designed to kill.
Certainly, licensing gun-owners doesn't necessarily stop unlicensed people from owning guns (just as licensing drivers doesn't magically stop incompetent drivers from driving), but it must surely help reduce to number of incompetent people who drive (or own guns).
Gun owners should be licensed; basic competency should be demonstrated before one can obtain a license. This license will allow the holder to purchase guns and ammunition. (Canada already does this.)
Gun-owners should be responsible for their guns. They should be responsible if they loan or sell their gun or ammunition to an unlicensed person.
Penalties for improper use of guns, ammunition or abuse of the responsibilities of gun ownership should be severe (and should include such things as appropriate and long-term community-service); any repeated offenses should mean a ban on gun ownership (just as a second drinking-and-driving offense should mean lifetime loss of your driving privileges).
Competent persons shouldn't be prevented from owning guns.
Local communities (i.e. cities or towns) should probably decide on policies surrounding things like carrying working (i.e. non-trigger-locked) weapons (concealed or otherwise) in public. For example, the city of Calgary might decide that no person may carry a weapon while the city of Edmonton might decide that any [licensed] person may carry any weapon they like. I think that the more decision-making which gets done at a local level (communities, towns, cities) the better: people are probably more involved in the decisions, and probably more likely to participate, since it is more accessible.
Mayhem?
I suspect that cultural influences are probably a far bigger contributer to violence, gun or otherwise, in a society. These influences include the availability of support mechanisms such as drop-in centers, welfare, food-banks, counciling, health services, community centers and the like.
Art will reflect and influence these things; many cultural products from the US and Canada present problems and then solve them with violence (although I think the US is far more likely to produce such products). Many cultural products still present sex and nudity as a sin -- greatly suppressing the urges of sexual creatures cannot be a good thing.
Violence -- including gun-related violence -- is symptomatic of deeper social ills; glossing over these problems by banning guns is not a solution. The US and Canada are two of the richest nations on Earth; if they cannot solve their social ills without resorting to superficial ``solutions'', then who can?