Personally I think that the US is gun crazy on both sides. Here's an article that shows various laws in countries outside the US that have limits on guns and have far far less shootings.
http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1
For those who just want basics, it shows what Canada, Japan, Britain and Australia do for gun control.
The UK - In 2009 138 gun homicides and 6.7 guns per 100 people. "Any person possessing a firearm in the U.K. must posses a Shotgun Certificate or a Firearm Certificate."
Canada - In 2009 179 gun homicides with 23.8 guns per 100 people. "There is no legal right to possess arms in Canada. It takes sixty days to buy a gun there, and there is mandatory licensing for gun owners. Gun owners pursuing a license must have third-party references, take a safety training course and pass a background check with a focus on mental, criminal and addiction histories."
Japan - In 2008 there were 11 gun homicides with 0.6 guns per person. "What is legal are hunting rifles and shotguns, but those can only be obtained after an exhaustive application process. An aspiring gun-toucher must first take an all-day class and pass both written and practical exams. Then, applicants are required to go to the hospital for a mental health test, and provide police with a medical certificate attesting their mental health and drug-free status. Gun owners must then submit to annual inspections of the rifle or shotguns and retake the shooting range class and written exam every three years."
Australia - In 2010 there were 30 gun homicides and around 15 guns per 100 people.
Australia is a rare nation that has had a significant shift toward additional gun control in recent years. Following a 1996 shooting spree that left 35 Australians dead at the Port Arthur tourist location in Tasmania, the government launched a major overhaul of gun laws.
In the decade before Port Arthur, Australia saw 11 mass shootings;
since then, there has not been a single mass shooting and the gun murder rate has continued its steady decline.
. The constitutionality of the 1934 act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security.” Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The Court agreed, unanimously. In 1957, when the N.R.A. moved into new headquarters, its motto, at the building’s entrance, read, “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation.” It didn’t say anything about freedom, or self-defense, or rights.
