You can't get rid of firearms. Nevermind should, you can't do it. Outlaw them, and outlaws will ignore the law. Attempt to confiscate them, and you'll be deadlocked in legal battles. Even if you change the laws, you'll need people with guns to confiscate guns from other people, and you will have a civil war on your hands. When the war is over, you'll have a lot of dead people, and the living people you don't want having guns will still have them.
If anyone challenges the above statements, I invite you to propose ways around any of those hurdles.
At best, you can only minimize risk. I would agree with those who say we need a better mental healthcare system, but that won't rid us of gun violence. The keyword in that phrase--gun violence--is violence. It is true that if you somehow took away all guns from citizens, they would resort to other means of violence.
Of 12,523 homicides in 2013 examined by the FBI, 8,454 (67.5%) were committed with firearms. The remaining 4,069 were done with a non-firearm method, save for a possible 850 (0.07%) where the weapon was not indicated (
source). Firearms are certainly a popular weapon for homicide, but far from the only weapon.
Most of the non-firearm weapons used in homicides have other uses. Some murders are committed with hammers, baseball bats, and other blunt instruments. Some are committed with rope, available in multiple varieties at your local hardware store. Even murders committed with explosives may be committed with blasting materials used in mining or demolition.
Shall we then outlaw all potential weapons? Of course not. You wouldn't allow your arms to be removed, and there are so many potential weapons in any given location, we would never get it all, not to mention we'd never submit to the removal of those objects just because they pose a potential threat. The fact is, we need hammers and bats and rope and explosives.
We also need firearms, because firearms exist. Outlaws will get them, so it is necessary for lawful citizens to meet that threat with equal or superior force. We build our military on the idea that where those who wish to do us harm obtain a weapon, we will obtain a better weapon, and train more proficiently with it. We need people to stand in our defense.
We could make it so only the police and the military own firearms, but are we willing to live in a police state? Do we want soldiers and law enforcement on every corner just in case? Even then, that still doesn't eliminate the fact that an outlaw motivated to obtain a firearm will get one, and authorities may or may not intervene before the outlaw can use their gun.
By now it's clear no venue is safe from an attack. Schools, churches, clubs, sporting arenas, and military bases have all been the scene of attacks. That, and more. In most cases, those shootings occurred in places where the legal carry of a firearm was restricted or prohibited. Even on a military base where guns were readily available, they were not readily available enough to prevent an attack.
If you can't get rid of guns, and outlaws will obtain them, how do we defend ourselves? I would point you back to how we establish our military. The enemy obtains a weapon, so we obtain a better weapon, and train more proficiently with it. Those who do not wish to carry firearms are, in the event of an attack, protected by those who do carry firearms. If your house is invaded, you call the police, who come armed and willing to protect you.
We need less fear of weaponry, and a more sensible approach to defense. People need to face reality that in a world with guns, the possibility exists to either carry a firearm and defend with it, or be defended by those who do carry them. In events like Las Vegas, I don't see where handguns would have helped. It was an exception to a rule that most shooters are in close proximity to their victims.
No solution will be perfect, but we can even the odds. I once saw a man carrying a rifle after the D.C. Beltway attacks. In the event of a long range attack, a rifle is a sensible weapon for defense. In most cases, a handgun would suffice to eliminate a threat. Some shooters, if not all, would think twice before attacking a group if they know or reasonably suspect there will be returned fire.
In short, yes, we should seek to improve mental healthcare, to crack down on illegal firearm sales, and to pray for God to work to intervene, but since firearms will always be a constant, we should structure our laws and public spaces to allow firearms. We should not disarm the intended victims of attacks for fear they will be attacked, but allow them the freedom to respond to attacks in self-defense.
