There should be a scientific method to identify the features of violent criminals by means of genetics, educational background, family background, religious and/or philosophical perspectives, emotional tendencies, behavioral history, financial factors, medical and/or recreational drug usage, medical problems, etc. Then use this data to predict who is more likely to commit violent crimes. These people should have zero or highly restricted access to guns.
The argument against gun regulations is that the number of people who were accidentally killed, accidentally injured, purposely injured, and purposely kill by gun shooters is far less than the number of people who were injured or killed by other weapons that are much easier to obtain. This data is true, but wounding or killing with guns is a lot easier than killing with knives, hammers, baseball bats, metal pipes, axes, screwdrivers, broomsticks, pots and pans, chairs, ropes, and lamps.
We don’t hand out guns and bullets like Halloween candy for obvious reasons. For typical situations, kids should not use guns. At least some adults should not use guns or should only use guns in highly restricted situations.
In addition to certain individuals, certain institutions should not have access to firepower or should only have highly restricted access to firepower.
Under the dictator Gaddafi, Libya became the most prosperous nation in Africa. Then came an explosive liberation, humanitarian shootouts, and dumb-mock-crazy elections from NATO, which was suppose to restore peace in Libya and was NOT suppose to assassinate Gaddafi. NATO and its mainstream media glamorized this foreign intervention as a stunning success for freedom and human rights, but, in reality, Libya became a failed state that’s perpetually stuck with civil wars and terrorism: “Power Struggle: Infighting makes it difficult to stop ISIS in Libya” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZsDoXDYtkU).
Israel’s defense minister admitted he wants ISIS terrorists to control various Middle Eastern regions in order to counter Iran’s influence (https://www.rt.com/news/329502-isis-iran-threat-israel/).
This pattern of supporting proxy rebels also exists in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. However, NATO suppresses independent rebel movements and supports oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Palestine, Israel, Egypt, and Turkey (e.g., Kurds and Armenians). Keep in mind Osama bin Laden was once a proxy rebel for the US regime during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was one out of many Muslim terrorists who indirectly supported the 9/11 terrorism.
Interestingly, the US Air Force allowed the usefully idiotic terrorists to crash their hijacked airliners into the WTC 1 and 2 buildings and the Pentagon:
(1) “War Games: The Key to a 9/11 USAF Stand Down” (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/usaf_911.html)
(2) “The 9/11 USAF Stand Down” (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911stand.html)
A foreign policy based on interventionism is a recurring cycle of supporting proxy rebels and proxy regimes in order to control global resources & cheap labor. Then the proxies want to be independent or antagonistic. Then the interventionist has to support new proxies to defeat he previous proxies. Then the new proxies become difficult to manage. Then the cycle repeats.