Top 10 Reasons Why Guns Should Not Be Banned in the United States

In the UK, gun laws are a thousand times more strict than in the USA. Usually, firearm ownership is restricted to sport rifles and shotguns subject to a license and is very heavily regulated by authorities. As a result, the UK's gun homicide rates are among the lowest in the world, thereby proving that gun crime can be greatly prevented without having to ban firearms altogether.

With mass murders involving guns like the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, and the notorious Columbine High School massacre shocking the nation and beyond, it's clear that the USA's current situation regarding gun ownership is unacceptably lenient. Unless there are serious changes, such as new laws similar to the UK's firearm regulations, such tragedies are only doomed to claim innocent lives again and again.

Not only that, no politician will ever say "I'm only going to modify or get rid of one part of the Constitution then will stop, promise." If they do say that, they're lying. We've seen liberal politicians create free-speech zones to limit the power of the First Amendment with George W. Bush and Barack Obama's presidencies, and if the Second Amendment can be modified, what will stop politicians from modifying any other amendment? The answer is nothing.

Oh, the outdated Commandments of America. The Amendments. You really love to live in the Wild West. You guys really haven't left the cowboy and Indian times. I hope you say hello to John Lennon in New York. Maybe hello to those kids in Sandy Hook too. Or as you Americans say, "How are you?"

This heightened competition will make a bad situation worse. Guns will be smuggled and delivered in secrecy, and the perception of seeing someone with a gun will be dangerously low. In addition, those with an obsession with guns will get into the black market and find themselves invested in shady businesses.

There are barely any black markets where I live. Then just ban black markets! Whoever has a black market will be arrested.

Thank you. Even if guns are banned, they're just going to be smuggled in alleyways anyway.

Yes, and only law-abiding citizens will hand in their firearms, leaving an unarmed majority at the mercy of the armed criminal minority.

They can just ban the unnecessarily powerful guns. Why would any citizen need a .50 cal? The answer is they don't. Why would anyone need a gun with 30 bullets in a magazine? It's not like the deer is going to start shooting back.

Rule with an iron fist for a while then.

Sure, because banning guns in Chicago, Detroit, NYC, and Washington DC has worked so well. People intent on killing will kill, especially with the current PC culture that wants to "forgive" murderers and "give them another chance". It's sickening how many times you hear of a murder being committed by somebody who killed 15 or 20 years earlier and was released.

It's true it won't stop people from killing each other. They will either find another weapon or illegally use guns, which is worse.

True, but at least there will be fewer mass shootings and all. People will always be cruel. Doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try.

You don't need a gun for self-defense. That's overkill. Additionally, the time it would take to get your gun, load it, aim it, and shoot it directly at whoever you're defending against will be too late in most cases. If you are really that worried about self-defense, then learn a martial art of some sort. It won't help against someone else with a gun, but if you learn enough of it, you can even take on people with a knife.

The self-defense argument just seems petty to me. You're not in an action movie. The chance of actually gunning down the killer in an adrenaline-filled situation is a lot lower than you think. You have to be a really good marksman to shoot the killer fatally.

This is the biggest issue with shooters. Most of them are actually cowards. They will shoot unarmed people, but if they see someone with a weapon as well, they will most likely fare not as well. Having just one method of defense (and it doesn't have to be a gun either) will make a shooter less likely to target you.

It is easier to kill someone if they have no means to protect themselves.

This reinforces gun control. We are taking their weapons away.

It's definitely true that many European countries have higher rates of violent street crime than the US. Also, if you take away the half-dozen worst "inner cities," the US is an extremely safe place. Google and Wikipedia are your friends on these statistics. Not quite the same thing, but the suicide rate of numerous European nations is also higher than the US, and the suicide rate in Japan and South Korea, which have zero guns, is more than double.

Some countries have more crime, but those are usually the less-developed countries, like Mexico. In the Western world, the US is faring so much worse, partly because of these gun laws.

It doesn't matter if the law applies to criminals or not. They will continue to act like criminals regardless.

I'm pretty sure laws apply to criminals too. I think the correct way to word this reason would be: Criminals don't care about laws.

The definition of a criminal is someone who breaks a law.

More guns do not equate with a higher homicide rate. The United States currently has a lower homicide rate than Russia and Mexico, even though gun ownership in both of those countries is significantly lower when adjusted for population. There are also countries like Switzerland which, as noted by USA Today, has 2 million guns in circulation for an 8 million population. The country has the second-lowest homicide rate per 100,000 people according to a chart on FreedomPhilosophy.TV. The idea that gun ownership increases homicides isn't supported by facts and statistics the United States has been calculating since 1950.

Very true. During World War II, Japanese military leadership decided against even short incursions onto the US mainland, specifically because they feared the fact that most US households had at least one gun in them.

That is true. Europe has many gun regulations. Britain, for example, banned guns. Bombings, stabbings, and other terror attacks surged afterward and are getting worse.

There are no terrorist attacks in Japan, which has strict gun laws. The same for Hong Kong, China, and South Korea. This is a matter of border control.

Yes, they can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but I think it's dumb that the lawmakers are going to try and take our money by taking our guns. We already give them enough money, don't you think?

You see, if you ban guns, you will not only have upset people who have had their rights taken away, but you will also have bad guys with illegal guns shooting innocent people who don't have guns. Really, all you have to do is think of it this way: if there is a psychopathic killer with an illegally gotten gun on the loose, who's going to be able to stop him? Only a good person with a gun, like a cop, who is there ready to shoot back. I'm not saying that we should let people have guns and run around recklessly, but there is no need to ban them. What we should do is educate people about safety with guns, usage of guns, and how to be a good, lawful, decent citizen.

So forth, we can get criminals who have guns to be put in jail. If they are proven to have changed, they can go back out again, but are going to be put on watch. Plus, all those people who have guns in their homes are now going against the law, and people will only get them illegally. In addition to that, for all of the hardcore Americans out there, taking an American's gun away is like taking their soul away. We need them to hunt for food and for self-defense. Also, if you take guns away, people are going to use other weapons like knives and stuff too. So, what we need to do is have background checks on people, and lawbreakers don't get the right to guns.

So we ban guns and we expect the government to help us out, right? Well, they won't and they haven't been for years. The FBI has dropped the ball on several catastrophes in the past, and I'll list a few right now.

The Boston Globe has reported that the FBI failed to act on the warning signs over the would-be Boston Marathon bombers. The Pulse nightclub shooter was on an FBI watchlist for two years before he murdered 49 people in the name of Islam. The Fort Lauderdale airport gunman told the FBI he was being mind-controlled by the CIA before the rampage. The FBI was warned twice about the gunman that killed several students in Parkland before the shooting and did nothing. Answering the question of government incompetence by disarming the masses and making us more reliant on the government makes absolutely no sense.

This is a dumb reason, as guns are definitely not meant to be safe at all. The food argument only applies to hunting.

For people who cannot afford it, this allows them to go out and capture their own.

Safety, yes.

Food, well, that is if you have a license to hunt deer, buffalo, etc.

Examples would include police officers, soldiers, and ranchers, as you need a gun to keep wild hogs off your property.

Banning or regulating guns never meant officials couldn't carry them.

That is why James Madison included the right to bear arms, in case the government became corrupt and we needed to overthrow it.

I'm not saying ban guns altogether, but enforce stricter gun laws, and there would be less (if not none) mass shootings if mentally ill people couldn't get a hold of these deadly weapons.

Like Nicholas Cruz. He was mentally ill and murdered 17 people. It wasn't the gun's fault there, rather his mental health.

So if guns are more regulated or banned, that means mentally ill people can't buy them. This item contradicts itself.

Take guns away from law-abiding people while keeping your own to use against others you just hate. In other words, Nazism.

If policemen are racist, people should be allowed to have guns to defend themselves.

"All police are evil" is a claim by libertarians, who are conservative. Know the differences.