Personally, I don't think the problem is so much with the second amendment itself, but in the way it has been recently interpreted. I just can not accept that the founding fathers intended a "well regulated militia" to include every lone nutter who wanted to own an assault rifle. What does the word "regulated" mean?
i might as well chuck in a few stats at this point. I am sure everyone knows them and most of you ignore them:
USA: 89 guns per 100 people,
Canada: 31 guns per 100 people
NZ: 23 guns per 100 people
Aust: 15 guns per 100 people
Homicide rate per 100,000 population (guns only):
USA: 2.97
Canada: 0.51
NZ: 0.16
Aust: 0.14
So broadly, more guns in circulation mean more gun homicides, but that does not explain the ridiculously high number of gun homicides in USA. I suspect it mainly relates to the type of guns available in USA, gaps in regulation, and a madcap notion by some gun owners that they are self appointed guardians against government tyranny.
You don't have to eliminate guns to eliminate most gun homicide. Eg Australia has one twentieth of the homicide rate from guns that USA has. In Australia, you can still own as many guns as you like. However, if you want to own a gun, you have to go through a lengthy process to get a licence, including explaining why you want one. You can't just get one because you feel like it, but anyone with a genuine need (farmers, sports shooters, hunters etc) has little trouble. Most, if not all, police carry guns when in uniform.