Should gun laws be expanded, kept as they are, or decreased? Why do you believe this? And if you said yes, how specific should gun laws get?
---
There should be one categorical gun law: no guns owned or used by anyone, not even the police, so it doesn't have to be very specific..
The reason is that the ability to own guns makes the country a more dangerous place, with a much higher frequency of murder than there has to be. People say that if it weren't for guns people would find other ways to kill each other, but that's just naive rationalization on the part of gun lovers--the easier you make it to kill people the more frequently people will be killed, obviously, and it's far easier to kill someone with a gun..
And guns are a disgusting device to own or even to want to own, as their sole purpose is to kill fellow human beings. People say they want them for protection, but it's still in the spirit of conflict, expecting the worst and wanting to prepare just for the possibility with the 'nuclear' option, lethal force. And not to mention that statistically you're much more likely to kill a family member with a gun in the house than an intruder.
As for the second amendment, it was intended for a 'well regulated militia', which civilian gun owners don't comprise, and it's totally unnecessary nowadays, with the US government being having the strongest military in the world by far. With military jets, Apache helicopters, missiles, nuclear weapons, tanks, grenades, tear gas, drones, etc. etc. there's virtually nothing some civilians with guns could add. And regarding the possibility of the people fighting against a federal tyranny, the same rationale applies; that would be utterly infeasible. So all the reasons for establishing the 2nd amendment are obsolete. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii
People argue that if guns are outlawed then only outlaws have guns, but the truth is that guns would be much more sparse in general, and therefore there would be much less gun violence and murder. And in Australia, where gun ownership is illegal, getting a gun on the black market will cost a criminal $15,000, so it's certainly not that easy.
People say that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but this is merely semantical manipulation. The situation of people using guns to kill people can be understood perfectly without appealing to a particular verbal framing of the issue. It's pure sophistry. Using the same logic, nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people (with nuclear bombs), so why not make it legal for people to make home-made nuclear bombs?
---
Oh, and I forgot to address the disgusting attitude that if *everyone* had a gun then the problems of gun violence would be solved because everyone would be able to protect themselves.. this is just an idea to raise conflict and stress levels to a kind constant maximum where even if it did result in less violence (which I doubt it would, as any verbal conflict, say, between drunk people in a bar, or people on the road experience road rage, etc. could easily escalate into a gun fight), the 'peace' would be kind of dystopia where everyone's in fear of each other at all times. Let alone the fact that it would never happen anyway because it will never be the case that most people will want to walk around with guns in their possession.
This rationale also applies to the somewhat more specific stance that we should arm school teachers as a solution to the problem of school shootings. And let alone the fact that, given how frustrating teaching children can be, and given the low pay grade of teachers and the sheer numbers of them, there are many teachers that definitely shouldn't be trusted with a firearm in class.