For and Against gun control in America

Should guns be more heavily retained, or continue to be distributed "freely?"
The following website:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/arguments-against-gun-control.html
contains an article that looks at why gun control in America is a bad idea.
One of the first points claims that in 2009, 39 percent of the American population voted to ban guns and other weapons altogether in the United States. It argues that if gun control was implemented, then there would be more chance that ordinary, law abiding citizens would be victims. It supports the fact that restricting gun access would be pointless because "there will always be a thriving black market for trade of guns and firearms."
An interesting point it makes in the second paragraph, is when it says that weapons found on students in schools can be justified because they have "found loopholes in the regulations."
With this, the article relates to various examples of rampages that some students in the past have been involved in resulting in the deaths of other students in the school, however, it plays these down as most are isolated incidents, and in most cases the pupil with the weapon had intention to do harm in an act or terrorism or the like, even further promoting how effective a gun would have been in concluding the rampage, should an authorative figure had one on hand.
One of the strongest arguments this article argues is that guns and weapons are a nations' defence aginst tyranny.
With examples of Nazi control in Europe during the second world war which led to the genocide of many millions of Jews, as the German authorities prevented them, along with Gypsies and landowners from owning a weapon. Had guns still been available, the result could have been very different.

What had surprised me whilst researching encouragement for gun control in America, was the lack of any real independent websites that expressed formal opposition against the possession of weapons. However what I did manage to find were articles considering the advantages of gun control in the U.S. This particular website:

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/355611_research-on-gun-control-in-america-today

Contains a member of the website community, Martin Rojas' opinion of why there should be more control of weapons. They open by saying the following statement: "I do believe in the 2nd Ammendment, but I also believe that there should be gun control on three major points. The first point is on what type of gun can be bought by an individual; the second is whether a person should be able to carry the gun either concealed or unconcealed, and the final point is the extent on a background check."
I think that this would be an idealistic approach to how to approach limiting gun possession as it does not descriminate or harbour prejudice against any race or person, making the limits fair and equal to all. It also covers the important aspects of public security.
He then talks about how he agrees that for the purpose of hunting and providing safety for one's family, purchasing a gun would be appropriate. However he does say that there should be sensible limits on specific models of guns. He then draws reference to the banning of purchasing assault weapons in California in 1989, which influenced the states of New Jersey, Hawaii, Conneticut and Maryland to do the same; he and they share the upheld belief that "An individual does not need an assault weapon if they are only purchasing a weapon for hunting or for safety."
[The ban was, however, later allowed to expire in 2004 by congress, and assault weapons can now be bought legally in those sates.]
He draws onto his second point by expressing the fact one shouldn't need to carry a weapon with them all the time. He insists, but does not quote, that crime rates did not change in states where unconcealed weapons (which equire permits) were introduced, and that if challeneged when carrying a weapon would probably "be more easy to kill that person, instead of just defending."
He says how he would "feel very uncomfortable" If he happened to be at a store and saw someone carrying a gun.
Through his final point, the blogger reveals that he was himself, a gun dealer for "A number of years" and when he was first certified to deal weapons in California, was "surprised" at how the background check was set up: "I thought it would be much harder to purchase a gun and that it would be a much more extensive process." He explains how, after submitting all of the necessary identification and paperwork to the Department of Justice, the individual would only have to wait a period of up to ten days to recieve their weapon.
"Some states", he claims, "Impose a waiting period from 48 hours up to two weeks."
He reasons that all states should instate these laws, in order to allow law enforcements enough time to "look into the individuals history; therefore the consumer/purchaser has what is called a "cooling off" period in case they are planning to use it on an impulse."
He also thinks that ten days is not enough time to carry out an extensive background search, and that more time would allow for a more thorough check of a person's history.

At length, after reading both websites it is easy to see from an American point of view, that allowing weapons to continue to be bought as they are would be the most ethnic solution for all, as it is such a passionately shared belief that the restriction of liberties that were implemented in the constitution may allow for more governmental power over the people. With a country with such a bane against big government, such a eat could prove disasterous. However with subtle changes in weapon jurisdiction, it could be possible to keep availability fair, but also keep the select few from causing potential harm to others, and keeping the general public safer in the knowledge that more intensive background checks are being performed to keep guns out of the hands of those with malicious intent.