I get where you're coming from but as someone that lives in a country that has extremely strict gun laws, I can say that all the laws have done in Australia is make it difficult for law abiding citizens to own firearms. It hasn't had any effect whatsoever on criminals who disregard the law. In fact over the last year there has been an increase in gun violence.

I would say that it's more a reflection of cultural attitudes with a mix of economic hardship. It helps that in Australia we have a  robust welfare system which reduces crime to an extent.

As far as America goes you have to recognise that due to its history and people's mentality it will be difficult in the extreme to attempt what you advocate. In fact I can see thousands of people violently resisting if it ever came down to it.

@OP

I suspect this is just a formality to make it look like the politicians are doing something but nothing of consequence will happen that would affect the video games industry.

1. Gun prohibition would be impossible to implement in America today.

2. Gun prohibition would allow gangs to expand further into lucrative gun trafficking.

3. Gun prohibition rarely impacts crime rates in a positive fashion.

4. Gun prohibition removes the public's ability to defend against tyranny.

5. Successful gun prohibition requires an extremely large and powerful central government, something that is easily abused.

6. Guns have other purposes, home defense, hunting and sporting are great reasons to own guns. Just because you don't enjoy these freedoms doesn't mean you should be calling for others to forfeit their rights.

Why not address the actual issues at hand instead of applying a band-aid solution to a symptom? America's gun violence problem stems from a culture of fear coupled with drug prohibition. The elimination of drug prohibition would result in drastically reduced organized crime (it's their main source of income) which in turn would result in less gun violence. Properly addressing the fear culture would be much more difficult to achieve in an ethical fashion. The most effective way would be to create a regulatory body to prevent the media from publishing so many hysterical and sensational news items. This would be difficult to achieve without causing state sponsored censorship which I oppose strongly.

Next, we can look to nations such as China to see what prohibition achieves in less than ideal circumstances. Without guns criminals simply use explosives in the PRC and to great effect. Additionally, explosives are far more effective in acts of terror as well. The complete elimination of firearms would do little to limit acts of terror as the components required for an IED are easy to access and impossible to ban.

Unless you correct the underlying problems than American society will never be like that of Japan, ever. Finally, I'd rather live in Russia than a nanny-police state like Japan so even if you could do so, I'd never want to see it happen.

I will continue to ridicule the bolded point. Because it is not reflected in any way by modern history, unless its an action of regional government against national government (the American revolution doesn't count, because for all intents and purposes that was a rebellion of local government versus national government, not of people versus government. Nor for that matter does our Civil War)

Russia and Japan are equally as "nanny-state" btw. Japan is just much more effective and civilized about it

Open your history book and turn to World War II. Hitler was a proponent of gun prohibition and for good reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

Maybe you should start looking at European history for examples of gun prohibition implemented by tyrannical leaders?

Also, LOL at Japan and Russia being equal nanny-states. In Russia I can own an AK-47 and smoke marijuana without having to worry about years or even decades in prison. I'd rather have some liberties than absolutely none. Japan is a toilet and I fail to understand why anybody would want to live there.

http://jpfo.org/

What did the Ghetto Uprising achieve for them? Nothing. In a grand military strategy sense, it does make sense to not have to deal with armed rebellion at home while fighting a war elsewhere, but rational rebels won't fight unless they know they're going to be destroyed anyway (as in the Ghetto uprising) or if they think they have a shot at winning (which, against Nazi Germany... nah...)

Armed resistance to tyranny is usually counterproductive for a couple reasons. One, tyranny is usually going to be better-armed, unless you're going up against an inept failed state of some sort, so you're probably just going to get killed. It is thus that tyrants really aren't "afraid" of armed rebellion, so much as they find it a nuisance to be avoided. Two, as i said before, armed rebellion gives too much representation to the people with guns, so you end up with warlordism, or severely divided militia factions that lead to future violence (like the Irish Civil War, or the groups running around Libya currently).

Peaceful and/or substate-sanctioned revolutions are what lead to liberty. Liberty will not happen before it is ready to happen.

Let's say we have a group of anti-semites, who are super-suspicious of Jews, but largely ignored or laughed at because the Jews aren't an actively dangerous people. If they are armed out of paranoia for a race war, then they BECOME a dangerous people, and it would certainly increase suspicion in the general populace about their motives.

Counter-productive.

Ban ALL the violent games!!

The violent crime rate statistics are very hard to believe, it should at least show some correlation with murder rates.

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/20549515/do-guns-stop-violence-the-us-has-more-rapes-and-murders-than-uk

So you would prefer to have quadruple the homicide rate of the UK? Ok.

I agree, guns shoud be prohibited from being sold to civilians, Japan is the example to follow.