Top 10 Reasons Why Guns Should Not Be Banned in the United StatesThis list is not intended to incite controversy, but to foster an even-sided debate.
The US Constitution’s Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The issue of gun control is global, but since it is most controversial in the United States of America, that nation is referred to most in the following entries.
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 amongst 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's 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.
Gun control does not mean banning guns.
The last school shooting in Britain was Scotland 1996.
It also remains the deadliest attack on children in British history.
Britain has no gun stores, no guns in supermarkets.
But guns are not banned.
People use guns for sport.
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.
Oooh the outdated Commandments of America.
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? "
"Oh the precious totally not outdated amandments of the United States", which already is being violated. It says that people are allowed to bear arms in a well-regulated society. But where's the regulated part of it all? Oh yes, it's not.
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 need one
why does would anyone need a gun with 30 bullets in a magazine? Its not like the deer is gonna start shooting back
Rule with an iron fist for a while then, period!
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 to guns will get into the black market and find himself 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.
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". Its 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 the guns which is worse.
True, but at least their will be less 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. As well as this, the time it would take to get your gun, load it, aim it and shoot it directly at whoever you're defending against, it 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 are learn enough of it, you can even take on people with a knife.
The self-defense arguments just seems petty to me. You're not in an action movie, the chance of actually gunning down the killer in a adrenaline filled situation is a lot lower than you think. You have to got to be a really good marksman to shoot the killer fatally.
Just having one in your possession is good self defense because think about it. If the shooter knows that you have a gun they are less likely to shoot you because they know that you could fire back.
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.
Definitely true that many European countries have higher rates of violent street crime than the US. Also, it 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, that 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.
Without any evidence or facts to support this claim, I can't really believe this. Try giving some sources for your info.
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.
And criticizing your goverment is un-North Korean. Your country isn't flawless, period
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 the gun ownership in both of those countries is significantly lower when adjusted for population. There's also countries like Switzerland which, as noted by USA Today, has 2 million guns in circulation for an 8 million population, and the country has the second lowest homicide rate per 100,000 people according to a chart on FreedomPhilosophy.T.V.. The idea that gun ownership increases homicides isn't supported by facts and statistics the United States has been calculating since 1950.
This is false. Look up the studies instead of foolishly comparing very different countries like Mexico and the US. After you control for things like income, almost every study finds that countries, states, regions, and households with more guns all tend to have higher homicide rates. Look up: "Firearm Availability and Homicide: A Review of the Literature."
Very true. During WW2, 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 afterwards and are getting worse
There are no terrorist attacks in Japan, which has strict gun laws. 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 its dumb that the law makers 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 their is a physio-path killer with a illegally gotten gun on the lose, who's gonna 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 silly, 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 and if they are proven to have changed they can go back out again, but are gonna 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 hard core Americans out there, taking an American's gun away is like taking their soul away. We need them to hunt for food and self defense, also if you take guns away people are gonna go use other weapons like knifes and stuff too. So what we need to do is have background checks on people and law breakers don't get the right of guns.
This is a dumb reason as guns are definitely not meant to be safe at all. Food only applies to hunting.
For people who cannot afford ford it allows them to go out and capture their own.
Food, well, that is if you have a license to hunt deers, buffalos, etc.
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, and 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.
People have got to stop looking at this fake-ass mentality that the government will help them with everything. Right now, the US goverment is doing everything it can to limit people's rights and 2A is one of them, a big one, but it's a slippery slope still.
Examples would include police officers, soldiers, and ranchers, as you need a gun to keep wild hogs off your property.
Polices, Farmers, Soldier, and Hunters need Guns. Because Protection and Hunting.
Banning guns or regulating them never meant officials couldn't carry them
That is why James Madison put in the right to bear arms in case the government became corrupt we could overthrow.
The actual intent of the 2A.
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 he murdered 17 people. It wasn't the guns 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 pigs, people should be allowed to have guns to defend themselves.
"All police is evi" is a claim by libertarians, who are conserative.
Know the differences.