Heck,  you yourself just admitted that crimes happen commonly in a gun-free zone, which is basically an area of restriction for firearms.  Do you, then, consider the increase in the homicide rate necessary?

>.> okay, new tactic.

Give me three legitimate, well founded and cited (provide sources) as to why we SHOULDN'T place reasonable restrictions on firearms.

Pro Tip: The Second Amendment does not count because it may be interpreted in a variety of ways.

as to why we SHOULDN'T place reasonable restrictions on firearms.

It depends what you mean by "reasonable restrictions", as something being "reasonable" is highly subjective. Could you be more specific?

Fine, a reasonable restriction would be something like a background check to make sure that the individual does not have a history of violence, criminal activity, and mental instability which may pose a potentioal threat at a future date.

Another one would be requiring the individual to show all around competency through some form of examination.

not have a history of violence, criminal activity, and mental instability

I'd totally agree with that on the surface, but the specifics could be unfairly implemented. "What counts as a history of violence?" How many and what types of incidents/reports over what amount of time would disqualify someone? "What is mentally instable?" comes into play, which could include anything from sleep or eating disorders to phobias to full-blown phychosis/schizophrenia. Also, "What types of criminal activity?" as things like jaywalking, minor traffic violations, or waving your 'hand guns' in school are crimes.

@zombinator, you're putting words in my mouth that I never said.

I said restrictions of gun licences will not get the US rid of all crimes. Point. What I mean by that is that is that there will still be certain crimes happening in all zones, independent of the gun laws; logically, as guns are not the source of all crimes. But compared to other zones, those with more strict regulations will be able to prevent a few unnecessary deaths, thus having a few less than the other zones. I don't see where you got that increase in homicide rate from, on the contrary, less homicides will happen.

How many and what types of incidents/reports over what amount of time would disqualify someone? "What is mentally instable?" comes into play, which could include anything from sleep or eating disorders to phobias to full-blown phychosis/schizophrenia. Also, "What types of criminal activity?" as things like jaywalking, minor traffic violations, or waving your 'hand guns' in school are crimes.

-_-' okay now you're just dragging this into the absurd.

Look, I'm not an expert, and you seem to be wanting me to give you a magical answer for the nitty gritty details I don't have.

Although there is a statistic in Australija where the homicide rate   click here  Just food for thought its a google link but all the links say the same thing.

whoop here's an actual site or search "did the homicide rate in australia increased after guns were banned" or something like that http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

Criminals have guns because other rival criminals have guns. Criminals have a whole lot more to fear from other criminals than any law abiding citizen.

so civilians do not have to protect themself from these guns.
these guns shoot other criminals. who cares about that?

Still easier to shoot someone than physically swing a blunt object. 1 finger pull vs full body motion, not to mention you can be quite far away.

this is what i mend whit "other weapons need more motivation to be deadly then a gun" a while back

So if an unnecessary death occurs due to a rare misuse of a firearm, that outweighs those that die due to an increase in the homicide rate, even if the homicide rate overcasts the amount of unnecessary deaths that occur?

you dont see homicides as a unnecessary death?

Pro Tip: The Second Amendment does not count because it may be interpreted in a variety of ways.

not to mention old and out-dated.

"What counts as a history of violence?" How many and what types of incidents/reports over what amount of time would disqualify someone?

for me: if youve been a night in jail. you lose your right to have a gun.

"What is mentally instable?" comes into play, which could include anything from sleep or eating disorders to phobias to full-blown phychosis/schizophrenia.

depends per case. from these few you listed i say.: sleep disorder = no gun.
eat disorder - yes gun. phobias depends per phobia. phychosis/schizophrenia = no gun.

as things like jaywalking, minor traffic violations, or waving your 'hand guns' in school are crimes.

jaywalking = illegal?
traffic violations = yes guns.
waving (showing) a gun anywhere = no more gun.

all whit all, it really depends per case and person. we shouldn't make exact strict detailed laws about this. if they will be made they sure are going to be exploited in some way.

Although there is a statistic in Australija where the homicide rate   click here  Just food for thought its a google link but all the links say the same thing.

Gun bans, yes. I came to accept that banning guns is not the way to go, and I've been advocating more reasonable legislations about guns. In the case of the US, yes, it does mean stricter laws, but I think if it's done in a sensible manner, there won't be negative repercussions.

And see it this way, as I already mentioned once: shouldn't gun licences be at least as hard to obtain as driving licences, seeing the high death toll both are connected with?