You might be surprised to know that Australia are the holders of the single biggest mass shooting in history.
(Although, to pre-empt Feud, the scale of that massacre might have been less if any significant proportion of the population were armed) - this occurred when an individual armed with semi-automatic weaponry went on a rampage through a popular tourist destination. In one of the only "decent" things the previous australian government did, a nationwide ban on semiautomatic weapons inc. pump-action shotguns was instituted
As for my opinion - obviously guns don't kill people, people kill people. With guns.
Hunting weapons are designed for hunting and don't pose a great threat to humans (difficult to conceal, carry, reload etc)
Handguns i.e. pistols are designed for killing humans, no ifs or buts about that. While some will argue that owning handguns is necessary to protect yourself against an assailant with a handgun, I would say that the reverse is true. If a burglar doesn't have easy access to a weapon and is confident that their target is unarmed, it's hightly unlikely that they would bother to arm themselves before breaking in. And based on this knowledge, householders would be less likely to fear a lethal intruder and would therefore see no need to arm themsleves either.
Ergo, there is a strong case for banning handguns - the more difficult they are to obtain, the less they will be used, and hopefully this would be a diminishing spiral (in the UK there seems to be an increasing spiral which is getting a lot of media attention, but shootings over here are still a lot less prevalent than in the states)
Assault weapons are miliary only and have no place in civilian hands. Period.
As for the US consititutional argument, the preamble of the 2nd amendment is
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
which strongly suggests to me that its purpose was to prevent the Federal government from disarming State militias and therefore preventing the ability of the States to defend themselves (and indeed the country). In the aftermath of the war of independence, among States naturally distrustful of imperial powers, this is quite understandable, but in the age of professional all-volunteer military and police forces, it seems to be being taken out of context.
A similar English law (still, apparently, in force) stipulates that
all men over the age of 14 must carry out two hours of longbow practice a day
for the exact same reason as the 2nd amendment - to ensure that an effective militia could be raised in the event of war. (Un)fortunately, you don't see a lot of longbows around these days!
I'm sure that cultural differences between the US and Canada/Norway/etc play a part too. But I think looking at the type of gun in circulation gives a lot better idea of how it is likely to be used, rather than just "gun ownership" in general
My £0.02. Ok, more like £0.05!
Cheers, Tripper
Edit - I just re-read Feud's post - to stop mass shootings, ban weapons of mass shooting (semi-autos and the like). I voted "strict gun control" because obviously you can't ban hunting/farming guns, but you can control them sufficiently to reduce their danger to society. I'm sure I could do as much damage with a kitchen knife in a shopping mall as with a hunting rifle ....