USA should have more restrictions on guns

argued here before, but this has some reformulated edits. the USA is pretty unique because of how pervasive our support of gun culture is (why nothing at all really passes, even something as simple as more background check restrictions, even after so many mass shootings), and guns themselves. we may not be like other countries that have done so much so successfully (perhaps even to the point that more gun access could reduce violence when 'good guys' have guns? not sure i'd go that far), but it's not to say they haven't had success. -australia had a manhattan project to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results, lower homicides and never since then a mass shooting. (can't be said for before the reform) -japan probably has the opposite of a gun culture, but it's clear that they too show that restrictions can have positive effects, nary even a murder, extremely, obscenely low. it's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more background checks restrictions etc. the states that have no to very few restictions have over twice the homicide rate. there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks. over 90% of people support background checks, there's so much grassroots support for it, i'd suppose there's not enough politicians wanting to stick their neck out for it. -really, it should be more than background checks, but it should be at least back ground checks. we have licenses and training and inventories for cars, why not guns? it would be a lot easier to regulate and keep out of hands of the wrong people. any far out conspiracy about government take over is too remote to trump real life practical concerns here and now concerning homicides. it's common knowledge and i can cite stats that say having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence. (everyone might think they are the exception, but obviously everyone isn't) if restrictions caused less guns, even to some extent, it would have some necessary positive effect. it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. but the die hards for some reason are against it, and the politicians can't muster change. http://www.timesdispatch.com... people like to point out things like you are more likely to fall down stairs or get killed with knives than guns. this may be true, but that's only because they are so much more common than guns. if you look at how much each causes death, you'd see that guns are more prone to cause deaths. on the same day of a recent mass shooting, there was over twenty people involved in the USA. in a very gun restricted country, is was over twenty with knives involved. guess which country had all deaths, and which one had all injuries? 'guns deter people' 'the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'. i've heard stats that say things like half a percent of guns are used for crimes and two percent in self defense. so yes there's some truth to these points. but that only means that we need defense because guns are so prevalent to begin with. take the logic, and triple the amount of guns out there. then we'd see six percent for defense, and closer to two percent for deaths. i'm not saying we should necessarily have a manhattan project like australia did and get rid of guns, but if we did, overall deaths would probably go down. we'd be wanting gun rights, at the expense of more deaths due to the 'right' to defense and to have a gun. it is a clear trade off. but even without getting rid of guns, that doesn't mean we can't do better at regulating them.