Are you really saying we should hold a nation of 300 million people responsible for the actions of a few people? That's something us scientifically-minded people call statistical insignificance. I'm honestly surprised you'd say something like this.
When you consider the all-but-infinite benefits of a gun ban against the all-but-nonexistent costs it doesn't seem disproportionate. It's not a case of holding the entire population responsible, it's a case of saying "we can't tell which of you may be responsible in the future so we're going to play it safe".
You're ignoring the fact that there are nearly as many guns as there are people in the US. The sort of solutions you're proposing would only work with a widespread collection of weaponry, literally the government declaring people's property illegal so they can confiscate it. Property people view as their means to defense from the government, if necessary.
That's what happened before our first Revolutionary War. It would cause far more violence and civil unrest than keeping things as they are.
Like I've said, I don't think it's possible to save the US from here. I'm more just pointing out how much of a mess your "right to bear arms" has gotten you into. It might have been a good idea at the start but the things should have been phased out long ago.
What about your 400% higher violent crime rate compared to the US? Gun ownership apparently doesn't provoke violence, so what you're proposing is little more than a slightly less violent form of violence, instead of anything you could call a solution.
Addressed in previous post.
So those people saying they have a "right" to a gun, they're saying they should have the freedom to own one if they feel they need it, and shouldn't be pressured into the sort of solutions you're proposing based off of inconsistent crime statistics. That doesn't seem like something we should deny people oxygen for.
I'd say the statistics are fairly consistent and conclusive: You can institute a culture of fear and reduce relatively minor crimes in exchange for a spike in murder, or you can ban guns. I don't want to live anywhere near people who would,
given the choice, choose the first option. I will concede that Americans no longer have the choice.
I'd agree if I believed it could work in the US. The right to bear arms will make any significant ban on firearms extraordinarily difficult.
The last assault weapon bans did absolutely nothing to our crime rates, so small changes don't seem worth debating about to this degree. Especially if the entire argument is out of the principle that "a law that reduces homicides is good". No shit, but how does that apply to reality?
The right to bear arms was an amendment in the first place. The situation has changed. Amend it again.
Like I've said already it may not be possible. There was an article in The Economist the other week where the author seemed to think you could do it with a massive buy-back programme, but you'd still be in for a painful few years. (I'd link to the article but I'm pretty sure it's behind a pay wall)