im all for stronger background checks at FFL's, but transactions between 2 lawful citizens is no business of the government.

anyway only about 2% of criminals got their guns at a gun show. so its really not a problem to begin with. 

and when i say myth i mean in that its not a 'loophole' nor does it have anything to do with gun shows. this goes for all private transactions of things at shows or at your house.

Death by guns will decrease, yes, but violent crime in general will increase. Since there are valid reasons (see: Second Amendment) to own guns and banning them won't change anything quickly enough in comparison  to providing better mental health care or changing the cultural problem , what's the point of banning them? 

Guns don't kill people. People kill people, access to guns just makes it easier for them., More good people with guns could help but I think without guns at all there would be less total casualties.

But I symphatisize with the Gun people in the USA. We have far to many restrictions already in the world, especially here (Germany). 

Just recently I found out a Gyrocopter isn't much more expensive than my car. My dream was almost in reach. If I won't see back to the future like cars thats the next best thing. Later I found out you can't just land infront of a supermarket or on a parking space. Why can't I have my freedom. There is no need to land it on special places if everybody would use common sense in their landing decision process. Its just illegal because people assume that there will be too many fuck ups.

Also where is my right to get high in whichever way I want on my private space not endangering anyone, or brewing my own drug of choice on my property while following all safety and waste regulations. With material I bought from my income I paid taxes for ? There is literally no good reason except that some people can't handle this kind of freedom responsibly.

Atleast I can drive as fast as I want when I am on an appropriate street, for now atleast and just on this tiny spot on earth.

I am all for gun rights even here in Germany. My friend has guns for hunting (it was a very expensive and time consuming process for him). I don't like it when my freedom or other peoples freedoms have to suffer because some people can't be responsible with theirs.

Sadly I know that there are a lot of humans who can't handle real freedom without fucking up. (Human failure aside). And thus society protects their weak/young/mentaly ill for their and other peoples sake.

Given the choice I would like to give a country a test run where everything is legal. I like the thought that we as humanity someday will mature to a point where we all can handle real freedom without killing ourselfs or others.

But right now or in the future its not an option. Taking away our toys seems like the only way out. TBH I personally would prefer a little more dead people and more freedom but I know that most people wouldn't agree with me.

Providing Mental Health Care IMO is the best answer as you stated above for the reason that you also stated above.

I like your wording in your first sentence where you state, "Death by guns will decrease but violent crime will increase". I myself would subtitute death for crime in my country if I were President.

Then certainly you'd love to live in China! They have a much higher crime rate than the U.S, but a lower homicide rate than half of Europe - with the people lacking freedoms, might I add. It's bad enough when the criminals are commiting crimes, but when the government does too, it's worse! In China they have no laws protecting children from teacher abuse, for example.  Yet their children are relatively safe from death, I suppose.  Is that a better society?

Also, we have no idea what the effects could be. Yes, death by guns would decrease, but who's not to say that death by other means won't increase with a gun ban? 

Here's a study from Harvard.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

"If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did
not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” hand‐
guns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a nega‐
tive finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us
where not to aim public health resources.
150"
  

Your pretty insightful on this subject it seems, more-so than me of course as I know nothing and have not studied. I'm just using my own sense and putting it forth and thats all you really need to do to understand that America could be so much better if government actually took care of their people as opposed to just giving their people a reason to stay.

Death by guns would decrease so obviously death by other means would increase slightly in each category. But does it not seem sensical to think that overall crime/homicide would go down after years past?

well that all depends on what is being sold: in the recent days after the newtown tragedy, many states had gun buy-backs programs, one person traded in a military grade RPG!!! that thing looked straight out of Call of Duty(lol) I'm pretty sure that's not something a U.S. cirizen is allowed to own(correct me if I'm wrong) and another if you ever watched "Borders Wars" a man was arrested after trying to transport weed along with two .50 caliber sniper rifles(I think they had enough power to shoot through tanks or atleast military Humvees)

as for the two percent, with the right laws it could be a "goose egg"

as for the "loophole" arguement it really depends on what side of the fence you're on; people who buys guns at gunshows then sell them could be considered unlawful depending on what state you in. I believe in states like California Connecticut I think New York. you could be charged if being caught selling a gun without some kind of authentication. and it depends on what gun you're selling, they're certain guns allowed and not allowed in certain states.

Higher crime rate in China than the US?  I'd be curious to see a citation for that.

China may have plenty of corruption and theft but I'd be very surprised if the total crime rate there wasn't much lower than the US.

I guess that's just a cultural difference. In the U.S we think our government is meant to do what the constitution says and that's it. At least, paleo-conservatives think that way and this has been the historical thought-process. It is up to the individual to change things if they want them changed, and government interference might not always or likely isn't in the best intentions of the people. That's the whole basis of the American revolution and the liberalization of the colonies. "Ask not what the government can do for you...." is just the magnification of this individual liberity view. Today we see a trend toward more people wanting more government dependence, and that's not always a good thing. The government is there to act as a medium for the people to express their freedoms, not as a means to control others. 

Gun control hasn't decreased crime rate very effectively in the U.S in the past. Washington D.C experienced a slower decrease in crime(and homicide) under gun control restrictions than when guns were made legal again and in comparison to similar cities. Furthermore, we've seen increased crime rates in the United Kingdom and Austrailia with the ban of guns, the first having a higher crime rate than the U.S as of 2009. Just look at the assault rate, rape, and victimization. Yeah with guns there might be a few more deaths of criminals (the ones commiting these rapes and assaults) but at the same time there would be less rapes and assaults on honest and respectable peoples. Also, the illegalization of guns or control of guns might not even stop massacres, at least not entirely. We've seen this with Brevik and Winneden in Europe and Columbine in the U.S. It might decrease their frequency, but they already make up a small percentage of total gun homicide, so a decrease in frequency might not mean a decrease in the frequency of all homicide, it just means there is less of these massacres, but not necessarily less crime overall. 

It's a complicated issue, and that's why "ban all guns" is too drastic a fix and can act as a detriment (as evidence by the harvard study.)