It is not an issue of "letting" people have guns. Whether there are laws created to prevent people from having guns; it matters not. The reality is, guns exist. They cannot be un-invented. As long as metal working and welding technology exist, those that wish to have guns will have them. In addition, 3D printing will (and has) made the acquisition of a firearm even more easily accessible.
Banning or restricting the availability of Guns for the public will only restrict them for law abiding citizens. In addition, it will shift the balance of power to criminals as well as the military and defense arms of the gov't.
Even with guns currently legal, studies conducted by the Department of Justice, and reported by Pew Research, have shown that the majority of guns used in crime (40%) were illegally obtained:
Forbes.com wrote:"where did the [criminals] who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source."
Read more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... s-plummet/
So to answer your question of:
at1with0 wrote: You'd let every other person (I hafta assume American) buy guns?
No, I would not simply 'let' them. It isn't even a matter of letting them. Those that wish to have guns will let themselves have them.
My question is this: For argument sake; suppose that tomorrow a bill to ban all guns passed. How do you propose we enforce that ban? Would you enforce it in a similar fashion to the War on Drugs? Perhaps call it the War on Guns?