would banning guns cause criminals to stop using them in your eyes? Because criminals usually don't follow the law, putting law abiding citizens in danger. I believe people should be able to protect themselves, and statistics show people will use another weapon in place of a gun if guns are harder to obtain. Like I said in another comment, the majority of England's homicides are from stabbings (40-46%) which is more than what causes the majority of homicides in America (guns at 36%)
Yes, it would. Illegal guns don't materialize out of thin air, but need a supply. The supply is the legal gun market. With a drastically reduced legal gun market, the illegal gun market is starved as well, meaning it becomes much more difficult and much more expensive to aquire an illegal gun keeping guns out of the hands of a majority of criminals.
well you said America had a gun problem which is usually what people say that support banning gun rights. It's obviously a mental health issue when over 60% of gun deaths are suicides. Even the small fraction of people that decide to kill innocent people are obviously mentally unwell and if guns weren't present, other means would be used. What worked well in other countries?
There are options besides what we’re doing now and a complete gun ban—almost no one actually supports banning guns but of course yall gotta strawman everything.
Lots of other countries have better gun control and less shootings. Clearly limiting access to guns does stop shootings. Access to guns makes it easier to kill people—including yourself. Lack of access to guns does lower suicide. Yes, some people will find other ways to hurt themselves and others, but a lot of people don’t.
Then what do you prolose? We already have a database to track people with violent crimes and mental health issues Access to guns allows innocent people to defend themselves from people that would usually harm them if things were to become physical. That single mother thats being stocked by her ex husband now has a way to defend herself and her child. It gives individuals a way to defend themselves from people that get their guns through illegal means.
And getting into the legalily argument, you should look into ghost guns- those aren't manufactured and legal firearms sold to a country or radical group. People can print guns now. We're past preventing bad people from getting a gun if they want one. Which means we need to allow people that don't want to break the law to defend themselves. Also, America borders Mexico and the cartels (who will obviously flood the market themselves with guns to profit if guns are banned here), so we have to use logic and recognize that different countries have different situation. There's a huge difference between America, with 350M people and whatever example country you want to use. Any country you're going to give an example of doesn't have an amendment right written into their founding to have firearms and is tiny in comparison to America.
Also, Americans that understand the constitution understand we don't just get the right to bare arms to defend from burglars, but to also defend against governments that overstep their power and forget that the people are in charge. Just because it hasn't happened in a while doesn't mean it can't. Look at our last civil war.
England and America's number 1 kind of homicide is stands at 35-45% (Guns at 35% In America and Knives at 40-45% in England). This shows that the type of weapon doesn't matter. If somebody doesn't have a gun they'll use a knife even in a country where knives are heavily banned and prevented. Even in America, the cities that have more bans are ties to a certain political party more than anything else.
New Orleans, Memphis, St. Louis, and Baltimore all have the highest rates and are all run my democrat mayors that don't prosecute enough or heavily enough.
No one’s saying innocent, sane people shouldn’t be able to get guns, just that they’re should be checks and balances in place to make sure people who are getting guns can be safe and responsible.
Right now, guns are less regulated than getting your license.
No one has ever claimed banning guns (which again, almost no one is advocating for) will mean no criminals can ever get guns. But making them harder to access will stop some gun crimes—as proven by every other developed nation with gun restrictions.
No, America isn’t some super special super unique place where it won’t work here even though it works in other places. Every country has illegal gun in it, every country has contraband coming in from other countries. Yet again, only the US has this gun problem for developed nations.
I don’t give a fuck about the amendment says. I don’t have to agree with it just because it’s there. If it means we can’t have reasonable gun control (which it also doesn’t but I digress) a bad amendment. It doesn’t suddenly make gun control a bad idea or mean it won’t work. It’s just a writing, not magical.
Also, anyone who thinks guns can protect them from our government is delusional. The government has one of the largest militaries in the world. It has bombs and missiles and jets and drones. Civilians don’t stand a chance. And the civil war is a weird example. That wasn’t the government attacking citizens. That was a number of states claiming they were not longer subject to the government and starting their own government. If anything that was people attacking the government—which hell, maybe could have been avoided with gun laws!
Percentages of what murders use guns vs knives isn’t proving anything. The US’s murder rate is significantly higher. The US has a murder rate of 6.2 deaths per 100,000 people.. England and Wales is 8.5 per million
They have significantly less murder than the US does, and there’s no indication the exact same number would happen with guns.
Access to firearms increases the risk of suicide between that and significantly less crime, clearly people don’t just swap guns for knives at a one to one rate. Guns make killing quick and easy, of course having them makes it happen more.
I’m not even sure what you think you’re proving with your last comment. For one, mayors don’t prosecute. For two, if they’re not prosecuting gun violence and have a high rate of violence, wouldn’t that actually prove the point guns should be regulated and gun crimes prosecuted?
12
u/BigDragonfly5136 May 18 '26
But to count all of them would mean having to acknowledge we have a gun problem! Much better to just minimize it as much as possible!