are more federal regulations on guns and ammunition needed?

The issue and argument

Some feel that gun control in the U.S. should be more restricted. They feel this way because many deaths occur in the U.S. due to guns. Here are the pro and con arguments

The pro's argument

The pro's believe that there should be more regulations and restrictions on guns and ammunition. Here are a few reasons they think are important.
1.There are over 70,000 injuries and over 32,000 deaths in the U.S. due to firearms each year.
2. If guns are restricted or banned less violent crimes will occur and the crime rate will drop.
3. If guns are banned or restricted, then less kids will grow up to commit murders or violent crimes when they're older.
These are a few of reasons that the pro's believe that the gun control propositon should be enforced.

The con's argument

The con's believe that no more gun and ammo regulations are needed. Here are a few reasons.
1. Over 65 percent of all self-defense cases include a gun or firearm. If a person is stopped while commiting a crime with a gun, then crime is actually reduced.
2. If guns are restricted or banned, more crimes would occur because the criminal would not be in fear of being shot or killed
3. In 1920 to 1933 alcohol was illegal in the United States. When alcohol was banned, more people wanted it, so people would make and sell it illegally. If guns were banned or made illegal, the same thing would happen. People would illegally sell, smuggle, and use or owns guns in the U.S.
These are a few reasons that the con's believe that the gun control proposition should not be enforced.

The candidates views

President Barack Obama is a pro and believes more regulations are needed on guns and ammunition.
Governor Mitt Romney is a con and believes that no more, or less, regulations are needed on guns and ammunition.