On June 12, 2016, America was struck by the second most deadly attack of the 21st century yet, after September 11, 2001. Omar Mateen, an Afghan American who worked as a security guard opened fire at a gay nightclub in Orlando, ending 50 lives including his own. The horrendous incident was described by many labels, from a terrorist attack due to Mateen's self-proclaimed link with ISIS to a hate crime on the LGBT and the Hispanic community, but getting a clear answer for this question would not prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future. America is not the only country in the world filled with hatred between races and prejudices between groups and ethnic groups, but it is where most people actually have to die due to these differences. And that is because in this land of freedom everyone is entitled to possess firearms and there are just too many freaking guns lying around in safes, bedroom drawers and even in the hands of toddlers.
Shocking and dreadful, but the Orlando shooting was only 1 in 43 shootings all across the US on June 12, 2016. In fact it was business as usual that Sunday, as gun violence and gun-related incidents result in 36 deaths and 76 injuries everyday in America, much higher than any other cause such as traffic accidents, natural disasters or even wars. It is also higher than any other country, and in all of them there exists a high correlation between number of firearm possessions and number of fatal casualties from guns, which is not really a surprise. Omar Mateen legally bought the weapons he eventually used to unleash his raging tantrum on the 49 unfortunate victims from a gun shop 2 weeks beforehand, a reality that seemed more like a scene from a modern horror movie. Likewise, Kevin James Loibl got hold of the guns he used to assassinate late popular singer Christina Grimmie legally and without notice from any of his family members or acquaintances. Individuals like Mateen and Loibl are not all that rare, but only in America should they be able to obtain specialised weapons to commit crimes of such magnitude. America doesn't necessarily have more criminals or more crimes than any other place, but its criminals are much better equipped and its crimes are thus much more lethal. 
America's unfathomable firearm under-regulation benefits not only criminals, but also people with suicidal tendencies, in the sense that they can get the job done with ease. Such individuals most of the time suffer from mental instability and once they fail to commit suicide once it is unlikely they would engage in that same activity, or at least they wouldn't be able to since attempting to kill yourself is actually illegal in most states (but buying guns isn't!). A suicide is only counted if well, the person is dead, so inefficient methods which either take too much effort or sound too painful "save" many lives, as most of those in that state of mind could not determine if they have cut the right arteries or swallowed enough sleeping pills to depart from this cold insensitive and heartless world. But a gun is efficient, maybe a little too efficient. The rate of suicides by guns in the US has increased by 150% over the past decade, pushing overall suicide rate to reach a 30-year high. If there is ever a "committing suicide for dummies" guidebook, which by the way would not be very credible since the author obviously hasn't succeeded doing what he is selling, guns must definitely top the list of most recommended cheat codes to rage-quitting the game of life.
If possessing guns effortlessly poses such a serious threat to society then why the hell have generations of American presidents failed to implement stricter gun control and regulation? First of all, the US president does not have paramount power over enacting legislative changes and that laws have to be approved by Congress before they can be in effect. And when everything the country does or contemplates doing is decided by a group of 535 people, consisting 100 senators and 435 representatives, their opinions are priced and their votes are earned by those who wish for certain outcomes. Lobbyists such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) spend fortunes to ensure pro-gun politicians get to sit on the right seats and stricter gun laws and regulations would never pass.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution actually makes banning gun ownership illegal as it is a fundamental right, as fundamental and important as voting and interstate travelling. This is often a hotly contested point during Congress meetings, and gun rights activists believe that the country would be much safer if every citizen has an effective mean to defend themselves against insane individuals like Omar Mateen. Proponents of the alteration or elimination of the right to bear arms feel that there is no need to even be scared of getting shot if no one can leisurely walk up to a shop and come out with a semi-automatic rifle to vent his anger on random bystanders. But then again, laws and orders never seemed to stop those who wish to inflict pain and suffering upon others.
In the immediate future banning guns and gun ownership would not reduce gun violence and mass shooting in the US, simply because it would be too little too late. There are as many guns in America as people since 2015, and on estimate 1 in every 3 households is in possession of at least one handgun, shotgun or rifle. That means if you live in the US and, hopefully, not the type who would feel safer sleeping with a pistol beneath the pillow, chances are one of your two direct neighbours would have more than two fists and a nasty personality to make you feel intimidated. However the pervasiveness of guns arguably tightens security around the neighbourhood since burglars and mobs do not enjoy finding themselves on the wrong side of the barrel, for the same reason they tend to carry out their activities in the absence of home owners or away from crowded areas. Announcing that most law-abiding citizens could only defend themselves with kitchen knives and frying pans now would potentially increase crime rate and defeat the purpose of the ban in the first place.
However, if Americans ever wish to expand their life expectancy the US government has to work towards restricting gun ownership and eventually prohibiting firearm sales to normal citizens. Less guns means less shootings and less people being shot to death, it sounds simple because it is. More thorough background screening is only accurate until the point of purchase of the weapons, but from then on buyers have to be continuously monitored so that any change in their behaviour indicating a likelihood to utilise the deadly gears they got in anything but self-defence and crime-deterrence is observed and intercepted in time. Who am I kidding, of course that is impossible to achieve with the current technology and manpower. In addition, people change facing different circumstances and "good" citizens today could very well be demons in human skin tomorrow. No one is ever born evil and all criminals are handmade by society and the way it functions. There is no escaping gun violence as long as citizens, no matter good or bad, are still able to get their hands on those lethal weapons.
Nevertheless, underground networks and black markets operate beyond the scope of the law, and criminals with sufficient funds and motives could always obtain what they need to make headlines the next day. We can never fully prevent firearms possession anywhere, and it will surely come to situations where innocent people are defenceless and totally at the gunman's mercy while awaiting authorised armed forces' assistance, but that is how it should be everywhere. Gun violence is and will always be a problem in the US. Restricting gun ownership might not reduce number of mass shooting incidents, but it would certainly decreases the probability of non-malicious gun-related cases such as suicidal attempts or accidental firings. The world is already unnatural as it is and America had been even more unorthodox by allowing guns to be purchased readily. America was different, and it's high time it acknowledges this difference as stubbornness and rigidity in legislation rather than freedom and protecting the basic rights of its citizens.
