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.
The Top Ten
What a load of bollocks. Gun can't shoot by themselves.
So the U.S. should allow guns, otherwise people will use other weapons to kill. Speaks volumes about American society.
GUNS are a weapon for people people have control of it the gun does not have control over itself
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.
Honestly if you don't wan't gun control then in the future you will be seeing laser guns, beware.
Oooh the outdated Commandments of America.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? "
I am a posh brit! I have read the 2nd Amendment! Guess what guns they had back then? I will give 10 seconds... it would take them about 30 seconds to get one fire! Now it is like one nanosecond to get 100 fires!.
The real question is how many people against gun laws actually read the second amendment
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.
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
If guns were banned no matter what someone would figure out how to get a gun
Rule with an iron fist for a while then, period!
Where would you put all the guns?
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.
Already 93 percent of gun deaths happen with illegal guns. And besides 98.6 percent happen in gun free zones places were nobody can defend themselves the whole ban guns to stop crime is the dead opposite of what would happen - boltslegend
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.
So you're fallacious argument is since we can't stop all of it we shouldn't even try. Just try saying that to a cancer patient
You are 4 times more likely to die of a cutting instrument like a knife then a rifle or shotgun
Its simple economics, take away supply and demand will go up and then supply will catch up bc theres tons of money in the black market
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.
I completely agree, Banning guns will just lower are way of defending our selves. There's no point
There are barely any black markets where I live, then just ban BLACK MARKETS! Whoever has a black market will be arrested.
Having a shotgun indoors is the end for any would-be criminals
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.
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.
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.
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.
I accept murder of bad unarmed people though.
This reinforces gun control. We are taking their weapons away.
True, anyway to defend yourself will get people to back down
Debatable, this is country by country and is more about the security in the country
That's a fallacy and a cop-out. Countries where guns are banned have an extremely low crime rate including NO MASS SHOOTINGS!
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.
Without any evidence or facts to support this claim, I can't really believe this. Try giving some sources for your info.
Take a look at Mexico. They have much more stricter gun laws than the US but has areas that are literal death zones. - Not_A_Weeaboo
Yah, 'Muricans love their guns...
Yes it’s in American. Pictures is a burglar breaks into your house with a gun and you have no means of protection for you or your family now it’s between you and the burger with a gun what exactly are you going to do to him if he has a shotgun and you have your first unless you were some trained assassin or something somebody is going to get hurt.
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.
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.
This is a joke, I obviously don't think this is true
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."
Even the study you refer to states that "None of the studies prove causation." There are plenty of studies that also say the same thing, a lengthy study by the National Research Foundation proved this with "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" among others. It is true that the United States has the highest rate of gun homicides, but what we don't know is whether or not the high level of violence has caused the high ownership of guns. Also data on gun ownership is based on surveys, which are insufficient ways to collect data - studies also don't elaborate on the multiple factors as to why someone would own a firearm. - nerffan8000
It doesn't matter if the law applies to criminals or not. They will continue to act like criminals regardless.
If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns
The definition of a criminal is someone who breaks a law.
But still try it
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?
Yes there dumb, but isn't that more of a reason to step up regulations? I mean if a COUPLE PEOPLE decide "hey lets go shoot a school" then the other person goes "ok sounds like fun" then they skip merrily down to the school and shoot 100 kids ALONE and lord knows what else happens. this is just insulting because my school had a lockdown and the man broke down our door.(no one was hurt (at least not in that classroom). and if we had a stronger law system we wouldn't have people who have mental problems and are just crazy running around with a DEADLY WEPON AND KILLING PEOPLE y'all crazy to think guns are cool and are ok.
For people who cannot afford ford it allows them to go out and capture their own.
I solely subsist on eating guns
Yes, guns with ketchup and a side of fires are the best. And an Coke to wash it all down - lawschool
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 ...more
This only ends with with one extremely wounded or dead person and a probably injured person.
If they both didn't have guns, there would be a lesser chance of either of them dying
False just false
There is a thing called martial arts. Just disable the shooter with kung fu or judo or whatever, call the police and have them make an arrest.
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.
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.
The Los Angeles times states: "According to our research, at least 59% of the 185 public mass shootings that took place in the United States from 1900 through 2017 were carried out by people who had either been diagnosed with a mental disorder or demonstrated signs of serious mental illness prior to the attack."
The Brady Campaign is a company who insures background checks before selling the guns: a much more effective method than banning every single gun in the United States.
Examples would include police officers, soldiers, and ranchers, as you need a gun to keep wild hogs off your property.
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.
Guns can easily be illegally produce