Top 10 Reasons to Increase Gun Regulation in the US


In the wake of multiple high profile violent events, the pressure is on to enforce tighter gun control. In the wake of such grief, that the call would go out for excessive policies was almost inevitable. Many have seized on this as an excuse to caricature those that are anti-gun as being people out of touch with reality. As you’ll see here, the demand is valid to an extent.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Now and then we like to dig back into the archives and re-share some of our best content as TopTenz Classics. Please enjoy this classic list from 2013.)

10. Australia’s Gun Ban Demonstrates Great Potential for Success


A statistic you see flaunted on social networking sites like Reddit is that when Australia had a mass shooting in 1996 in Port Arthur, guns were banned, and there hasn’t been a mass shooting since. But while that’s good for headlines and very dramatic, more significant is how it has affected Australian gun crime over all. That dropped 59% in the following decade.

9. Civilian Militias Do Not Need Them


An oft-cited idea by American gun regulation opponents is that allowing the government to have all the guns allows for tyranny, since to quote the second amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” Thus there have been 512 groups organized on that principle in the U.S. The most successful groups have not needed to fire any rounds to aid civilian interests. For example, the civilian border watch group the Minutemen in 2006 prevented a reported one hundred illegal immigrant crossings a day, despite not being permitted to use their firearms.

 8. Mass Shootings are Not Aided By Citizen Gunfire


It is also widely argued that potential mass shooters could potentially be stopped by a bystander. This likelihood is heavily overwhelmed by the possibility of a hitting a bystander, another gun person such as a police officer shooting the citizen attempting to stop the crime in the confusion, and similar concerns. For example, during the Jan 8, 2011 Tucson, AZ mass shooting, Joe Zamudio almost shot a person that had already disarmed the shooter. In almost all instances where a citizen stopped a shooter, the means used were through physical combat, the individual was either had done military or police service, and almost never needed to shoot. Additional examples listed below:

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

Appalachian School of Law shooting

 7. Guns Are Counterproductive in Home Defense


The appeal of buying a gun to stop a burglar or worse is more than understandable. There is especially cause to be concerned that the police will be less effective as a deterrent when you consider that of the ten cities with the highest violent crime rates, five cut the budgets of their law enforcement in 2012. But the unfortunate fact is that at the end of the day, a gun is twenty-two times more likely to discharge a bullet into a member of the household than into an intruder.

6. Homeowner’s Guns More Dangerous For Children Than Mass Shooter’s


This is a point continued from #7 that bears emphasis. Let’s not kid ourselves: in the back of our minds, we’re all still thinking about what happened in Sandy Hook Elementary in December 2012. But as reported by the Huffington Post, in 2010 alone, 129 minors were killed by accidental gunshots. JUST accidental, never mind all the impulsive shootings and how they are a common means of committing suicide. They are not a statistically effective means of protecting your family.

 5. Recreational Shooting Very Dangerous Beyond The Bullets


It’s true that accidental shootings from hunting are very limited thanks to hunter safety training. It’s less than ninety Americans killed by hunting annually. Hunting is still extremely dangerous in that in dry weather, it has caused numerous forest fires. It’s just inevitable that a large number of ion sparks will be produced by firing the gun. In 2012 thousands of people in Colorado alone had to temporarily evacuate their homes due to forest fires caused by recreational shooting.

4. Defending a Home with a Gun Endangers Neighbors


Even if you don’t own a gun, if your neighbor does, your safety is lessened. News reports provide multiple stories where an individual shot a gun and the bullet struck someone in another building. If you’re defending an apartment, consider how you’re potentially endangering someone in the other room.

3. A Gun You Own for Self-Defense Might Be Used Against You


No matter how tough you think you are, many people do not have the force of will to kill another person, even in self-defense. Even trained soldiers will have trouble with that. So a person suddenly put into a life or death situation might have trouble just having the will to shoot an assailant, to say nothing of just being physically capable in an extremely stressful environment. So it’s very likely the person attempting to defend themselves will end up like this man.

2. Even Blanks can be Deadly


Some people believe they can defend themselves without endangering bystanders with the sound and flash of blanks. While using blanks certainly limits the danger, it is not as safe as it sounds. Numerous people have been killed by close range blank fire. This ongoing misconception (reinforced by movies such as Crash) is going to endanger many dealing with someone believing they have a safe device.

1. Evidence Also Exists An Overall Ban Might Be Counterproductive


The author would like to conclude this by bringing us back to the point that excessive anti-gun policies will likely not be good for the country. We’ll take the example of Great Britain’s 1998 ban to illustrate the point. The massive gun ban cost the country £500 million, and consider that their population and gun count were much lower than that in the U.S. and was done without a constitution that promised them the right to bear arms. In the decade following the decision, the nation’s gun crime doubled. It has not lowered their assault crime rates either, which have instead increased significantly, although correlation is not causation. It also seems clear that if guns overall are banned, many perpetrators would otherwise be intimidated by a gun that would not need to be fired would be more inclined to assume they are safe from a citizen that would otherwise stop them. So don’t be too quick to call for a nationwide gun ban even if your heart is really set on that for personal or ideological reasons.

Other Articles you Might Like
Liked it? Take a second to support on Patreon!


  1. Almost every single statement is a boldface lie and has been proven to be so multiple times.

  2. Want to stop mass shootings? Don’t let Democrats own guns. Almost every mass shooting in recent years has been done by a Democrat or someone who lives with parents who are Democrats.

  3. Although inconvenient, the document is called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. With that, drop dead (in your safe space snowflake).

  4. What entertaining top ten list did you table to present this? And couldn’t you have waited until the bodies of those in Dallas were cold? This is ghoulish “don’t let a crisis go to waste,” at its worst. I love this site, but c’mon.

  5. The Annoyed Elephant on

    10. Australia’s Gun Ban Demonstrates Great Potential for Success

    Australia, in case you didn’t know, saw an increase in murders after its gun ban. It’s also a very different culture from the US, which was built on revolution and independence.

    9. Civilian militias do not need them?

    You know, the right to bear arms is not given to the militia – it is given to the people BECAUSE the state must have a militia (aka “military”). Of course, I only think that because I actually read the Second Amendment.

    8. Mass shootings are not aided by citizen gunfire.

    Prove it. You can’t, because the vast majority of mass shootings have taken place in gun-free zones… almost as if criminals don’t care about laws for some reason.

    7. Guns are counterproductive in home defense.

    Bullshit. There’s hundreds, if not thousands, of examples where gun owners have successfully protected their lives from intruders and other criminals. The numbers do not back your assertion at all.

    6. Homeowners guns are more dangerous for children than mass shooters.

    That’s true. They’re also more dangerous than the space shuttle falling on the kids’ heads. Wanna know why? Because there are a lot more homeowners guns than mass shooters. Having said that, a responsible gun owner will keep their guns locked away from their kids and will teach their kids to respect and properly use firearms. We shouldn’t change the laws for everyone just because a few idiots don’t use common sense.

    5. Recreational shooting very dangerous beyond the bullets.

    Seriously? You’re dowsing your pants because of hunting and target shooting? Give me a frakkin’ break.

    4. Defending a home with a gun endangers neighbors.

    It doesn’t if you use the correct caliber and round type. Hollow point bullets are more likely to slow on impact with a wall, and there are bullets designed for in-home use. Meanwhile… you know what endangers neighbors even more? Criminals who want to kill people inside their neighbors’ homes.

    3. A gun you own for self defense may be used against you.

    Well thank you, Captain Obvious. You know what else can be used against you? Everything. Your TV. Your chairs. A knife. Your begging the criminal not to murder you and your family even though you’re a good liberal who doesn’t own guns.

    2. Even blanks can be deadly.

    Who uses blanks?

    1. Evidence exists that an overall ban might be counterproductive.

    Evidence exists, huh? How about a long history of evidence that shows that gun bans are completely ineffective?

    Now let’s see some pro-gun lists for once.

    • 10 – u are wrong.
      8 – with an average of a mass shooting every fucking day, you’d think all these gun carrying heroes would actually do what they say they will do and be the hero. just doesn’t happen.

      I can’t be bothered with the rest of your dribble.

      • You do understand even the author of the piece conceded gun bans may not be the best route w/point #1, right? And the only reason you can’t be bother to refute any of his points, is because you can’t. I’d like to see annoyed elephants sources on all his points, but frankly, you don’t make any points at all. So to both of you, sources please, not sermons.

        • The Annoyed Elephant on

          I listed some sources, but my post got deleted (links, I guess, got it blocked). However, Mother Jones – a liberal magazine – did a good job of researching lol’s claims and found them to be false. They found the rate of actual mass shootings is closer to 4 per year.

          Everything else you can Google. Again, I’d post the links, but they get blocked.

        • Thanks, I have seen some of this information before. But others could use the links. Now I know why they are not there.

  6. Helpful article ! I was fascinated by the specifics – Does someone know where my business would be able to locate a template 2012 ATF E-Form 3310.4 example to type on ?

  7. i think a man much wiser than all of us once said

    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety…

  8. I live in Pittsburgh PA, although not the most dangerous city in the states we have shootings almost daily. A good friend of mine lived in London for 2 years told me once he was more fearful walking the streets of London due to all the thugs walking the streets with no fear of jumping innocent strangers. What I’m trying to say here is without that fear in the back of people’s minds Alpha males go to the top of the food chain.

    • Sorry, was that a point you were trying to make?? You mate was walking round London and felt scared? Would it make you guys happier if Americans were allowed to carry guns when visiting foreign countries? Maybe pick one up when you get off the plane? “It’s ok officer, he’s an American. He’s carrying that Assault Rifle because he’s worried about being attacked by one of London’s many Alpha Males..”

      Whilst you’re over here you might also like to visit one of our high schools. Just get a load of those corridors.. Something missing? That’s right, the linoleum isn’t littered with the corpses of staff and students.. It’ll seem weird at first but you and your friend will soon get used to it.

  9. Second Generation American on

    I’ve read and enjoyed most of the top ten stories I’ve seen with one exception. This top ten list is a disgrace. I won’t even touch the poor grammar and sentence structure, rather I’d focus on the content. The phrase “lies, damn lies and statistics” could sum up the content. I don’t have the time to methodically chip away at the erroneous statistics. I’ll just stick to the first one as an example:

    This top ten posts states: “…more significant is how it has affected Australian gun crime over all. That dropped 59% in the following decade.”

    In fact, VIOLENT crime has gone up 55 percent since Australia enacted gun reforms.

    It also never answers the fundamental question…if gun laws work, why does Chicago and DC (who have the toughest gun laws) have the worst crime rates, by far, in the U.S.?

    I won’t be visiting this site any longer because of your irresponsible use of statistics and your clear agenda. Good bye.

  10. I’ve read countless arguments similar to “the core problem is poor upbringing, social issues etc, NOT the weapons themselves”. While this is to a large extent true, it does not mean that gun restriction is useless when it comes to preventing gun related killings.

    Analogy with car accidents: Of course the core problem with car accidents is related to the person driving – alcohol, poor judgement, drugs, tiredness, anger etc etc. Does this obvious fact mean that we should get rid of speed limits, seat belt requirements, divided highway lanes, alcohol restriction, etc etc???? Of course not.

    Be it car accidents or gun violence, we should do all we can to prevent them. This means addressing the problem at all levels.

  11. I would also like to add that points number 8, 7, and 5 (maybe 4), are downright silly! You can use statistics all you want, but if I am trained and efficient with a gun, then it is certainly a very effective tool in defending my home! same goes for stopping a mass shooting, a trained and efficient individual would certainly be an aid! maybe time has not proved this, but IF someone like that happened to be at the right place at the right time! and number 5 sounds plain dumb. I would like to see them tackle that one on mythbusters. I do not understand how a bullet can cause a forest fire, even if it is what they said in a lousy news article (as if that is the real truth), and EVEN if firing a rifle causes ION SPARKS… seriously? ion sparks? are you even trying? do you even understand what you are talking about or do you just expect us to blindly believe that despite common sense and logic? That may have been a little harsh… but that was my reaction to reading such a claim without any science backing it whatsoever. Number 4 is possible but it sounds super rare, like a freak incident. I’d like to know how often that happens and how often it is lethal. I’m also pretty sure you can take precautions to keep the bullets from going through your house and into another.

  12. wow! so many taking a simple list so personally! no need to attack others who have an opposite viewpoint. just talk to those who share your opinions if it gets you that fired up. I am mostly in the middle on this matter.

    On one hand, I believe the problem is much more complex than simply banning guns or restricting their use/purchase. American society has a number of problems. Many people are not healthy, mentally spiritually or physically. many everyday, average people are ignorant, selfish, hypocritical, unsympathetic, and even delusional! The chances are that we are all guilty to some degree! Good parents are extra important!

    On the other hand, I do not understand why so many people are so in love with the second amendment! I understand one argument, that if we let the government take that away, even just partially, then we are sending a message of weakness and the government may start to walk all over us. I also understand that we would also be defenseless from the government and revolt would be almost impossible, if a revolt was truly necessary. But I, for one, find both of these opinions to be excessively paranoid. Hasn’t anyone learned anything from school? John Locke and Thomas Hobbes ring a bell? Government does not have to be evil! And the USA government is not evil! It is not out to get its citizens, it is there to help and protect us (not implying that they succeed all the time). This isn’t the revolutionary war anymore! There is no more “evil” king or monolithic empire! Even if the government did try to take other rights, like our freedom of speech, I believe that the people would still rise up, and would still speak freely and would revolt for the greater good. There are more of us I’m pretty sure! And I don’t understand how people against a gun ban can say “people get drugs even though they are illegal, same would go for guns” but then say “a gun ban would leave us defenseless against a tyrannical government”. By the logic of the former statement, we would not be defenseless. And as a closing statement, it must be mentioned that our constitution was written in the late 1700’s. When people had freakin’ muskets and swords. The nature of the beast that is gun control has changed TREMENDOUSLY since the late 1700’s. If Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and the other founders saw the kind of firepower we have today, they would most likely s**t their pants. I really wonder how they would feel about the second amendment now.

    • Politics – like religion – is a deeply personal thing, hence you are more likely to see personal attacks in the comments on politically themed articles.

  13. There’s only one country I know of where gun bans work, the one I live in, Republic of Ireland. No, seriously, there are maybe 3 murders a year by gun crime (big-time criminals) due to how hard it is to import them, plus the expenses. If you get shot, you must have done something really wrong OR walked straight into a gangland fight. In Ireland, you’re more likely to get beaten to death than anything else by a mile. Stabbing comes second :). Even the police (Gardaí) do not carry guns.

    Why is this? To put it simply, smaller population. There’s an estimated 5 million people in ROI (Republic of Ireland). So everyone knows everyone, in a sense (i.e you know a friend who knows a friend who knows a friend….) and this causes a close-knit community which in turn causes harmony and yadda yadda….

    Another reason for this has been because of the banning of guns since the civil war of 1922-1923 due to the amount of casualties of innocents. The Garda Síochana (peaceful police) were set up then and didn’t carry guns, so both sides could trust them and get bystanders out of the area (No seriously, that was their job, to help the people). So there has been at least 3 generations gun free so everyone is used to it. That is a huge factor.

    I agree that banning guns would be advisable, but not all at once as all hell will break out, espescialy with criminal gangs. If people were slowly weened of them. I’m sure it would work out fine. Guns don’t create harmony and peace, they cause paranoia and too many deaths.

    And no, before you say it, I’m not for PETA or any of that other s***. I’m just giving my views from someone who has lived without guns all their lives.

    • Why ban guns though, when it’s not guns that are the problem but rather criminals? Ban criminals and let the others have the guns. A simple gun ban would target the people who aren’t the problem – what’s the point in that?

    • In a practical sense, not much.

      In a realistic sense, America is still viewed as the leader of the free world, and where they go, other nations do pay attention, if not outright follow. However, I would still leave the debate off that list. The mass shooting at Newtown probably should’ve made it, but the debate here is probably not quite worthy of a top 10 world news events.

      Having said that: I would have included the re-inauguration of Obama on that list. Like him or not, the inauguration of the President is an important worldwide event.

      • Dr. Matthew D. Zarzeczny, FINS on

        Yes, the second inauguration of Obama is a reasonable suggestion. I did consider it, but decided against, because if it being mostly the formality as opposed to the actual election victory itself back in November. Good thoughts, though! 🙂 I am working on a top 10 defensive gun use incident list in the meantime. And on a personal note, as a historian interested in historic weapons, I am bent on getting a Chicago Typewriter with a drum magazine at some point. So, all I can say is that I am opposed to anything that will prevent me from acquiring one! I do think, we need to improve our mental health care treatment and I am definitely supportive on restricting guns from people with obvious mental illnesses. I do not think law-abiding citizens should be penalized, however. I am the son of a Marine and brother of a police officer. I have no criminal record, no history of mental illness, etc. I enjoy firearms for target practice (I live out in the country), I enjoy collecting things of historic relevance, and I do want something with significant rounds in the event of some unexpected catastrophe (natural disaster, riot, etc.) in which I do not want to play games reloading if need be the case. The thing is there are already enough guns out there that if criminals want them, they can get them. As such, some of these laws just wind up punishing the law-abiding people. Besides, a criminal with a chainsaw or someone who is skilled with a katana could kill a large number of defenseless children as well. Not to mention what people could do with homemade bombs. Bad guys do not need guns to terrorize us. I always find it interesting at the places I teach how signs say no firearms and so forth when that is not exactly going to deter someone intending on perpetrating a school shooting. It might deter people who would respond defensively, but someone intending on committing mass murder is not going to see a no guns permitted sign and go, “Oh, okay, then…” So, I would support increasing efforts at mental health care and maybe more effective background checks, but I would not make it so law abiding folk with no criminal records and no mental illnesses are deprived. People may say, “Why do you need more then ten round magazines?” Well, if multiple burglars broke in my house carrying multiple guns, it behooves me to have sufficient firepower to combat them. If I have a pistol with a ten round magazine against say three guys each with pistols with ten rounds, I at a disadvantage aside from having to do some skill shooting. Again, I am in the country where it is unlikely stray bullets would hit any neighboring houses. Now, say some thugs break in with multiple pistols, but I have something like a Tommy gun with a multi-clip magazine, I can spray them with bullets with much greater ease and efficiency. Same thing if there was ever some bizarre natural disaster and I had to disperse an assault by multiple looters. Anywyay, thank you for your civil reply! 🙂

        • And I, your reply.

          I’m also a big fan of target shooting. Last year, I finally got the wife to begrudgingly join me and the result is that she’s learned that she’s a pretty solid shot. We both go to a local indoor range regularly to keep trained up, and hopefully, later this month, she’ll experience her first clays course.

    • Since you won’t be reading this I will write this for others who may be thinking the same as you, Dan. I never understand why readers take the stance that they won’t visit any longer simply because we put out an opposing view point. Isn’t the world full of such opinions for everyone? Do you stop interacting with other people, sites, businesses because a view point was put forth that doesn’t align with yours. Doesn’t offer hundreds of other informative, fun or interesting articles that counter an article that says something you disagree with.

      And guess what? We’ll be putting out another article this week or next about Gun myths (Thanks to 5mintues for writing) which will favor those in support of less gun restrictions. I assume them that will lose the other half of visitors who want more gun restrictions. We can’t win! So everyone enjoy the site now, in a week or two everyone will leave because we publish information that you may disagree with on both sides of the topic. Too bad we never got to publish those Pro-Life and Pro-Choice articles. 😉

      • You know… I can do one of those, too… so long as I can mention “SOMEONE’S GONNA BURN IN HEEEEELLLLLL” at least once. 😛

      • Let’s address these statements individually:

        > I never understand why readers take the stance that they won’t visit any longer
        > simply because we put out an opposing view point. Isn’t the world full of such opinions for
        > everyone?

        It is their right to do so just like it is your right to mostly post whatever your little heart desires. That same document you are advocating be changed to support your viewpoints says so.

        > Do you stop interacting with other people, sites, businesses because a view point was put
        > forth that doesn’t align with yours.

        Actually, yes, I do. I have been carrying a concealed firearm for close to 20 years (since it was made legal in this state to do so). My views are reflected in that habit. Businesses that prohibit the lawful carry for whatever reason are placed on my “Do Not Patronize” list and I shop elsewhere. When they make a decision that effects me, then I will make a decision that may effect them. This personal “law” of mine is also guaranteed by that paper mentioned above.

        > Doesn’t offer hundreds of other informative, fun or interesting articles that
        > counter an article that says something you disagree with.

        Until now, no, you did not. Many of your articles are either informative or amusing but none have attempted to become political until now. Articles that have had a serious side have been presented in a neutral way and that is what made them acceptable. You have had articles that either I didn’t care for or just wasn’t much interest to me and those I just skipped and came back the next day. When you make this list a vehicle to showcase your viewpoints then it becomes political and, franklly, no longer worth my time.

        Oh, if you question my statement that you made this a personal/political list, then please take the time to re-read your own statement about putting out a list within the next week or so about “Gun Myths” The title says all I need to hear about what it will contain so rather than a list that counters the list being discussed here it will only further your agenda. I think you can be assured that you won’t lose the remainder of your subscribers since it will be a continuation of this article.

        You might consider sending emails to The Brady Campaign and Diane Fienstein to join and offer their support.

        • This site is not my vehicle for my viewpoints. I post just about anything; the readers always assume everything is the owner’s viewpoint, I guess. I usually try to post both sides (whether I agree with one side more or not) and if showing both sides to an argument offends you, then so be it.

          PS – I didn’t write the list.

        • As for you not writing the list, I didn’t write the Constitution either but I make it a point to defend it when it is threatened by uninformed folks spouting their drivel about how happy the world would be if everyone just got along. Same as you posting more than a few times in defense of whomever DID write the list.

  14. Wow. I enjoyed the list, but I think I enjoyed the comment section even more. ‘Murica..?

    I’ll never understand the USA in this regard. Never.

    • I’m with you. Out of all of the amendments, this is one that I think people overreact to the most. If you want to see who lives in ‘Murica and who lives in America, this is always a good litmus test. 😀

      • OK. Then let’s take away your freedom of speech. Let’s arrest you for repeatedly referring to Americans as “‘Muricans” and the United States as “Murica”. Then let’s see who overreacts.

        • And there we go again. 🙂 See, that’s a problem on the internet: Many Americans fail to realise that other people online might NOT be from the US. My freedom of speech is fine, thank you – despite not being based on the American Constitution. And guess what? My freedom of speech is not hindered by the rather strict gun control in my country. It’s not always all or nothing.

        • Your freedom of speech is granted to you by a government who’s disarmed you from revolting should they choose to take that right away. And if you say “it can’t happen to me”, then I’ve got a few Central European nations I can refer you to.

        • Considering that I live in Germany, one might technically argue that it wasn’t MY government that disarmed me. 😉

          Jokes aside – from a historical point of view I’m trying to understand the need of so many US citizens to have this right to bear arms. It just doesn’t seem to me to be anything other than a law that used to make sense but may be somewhat outdated these days.

          And yes, I am convinced that it can’t happen to me. Because it so did happen here. And we learned from it. However, you don’t need weapons to change a society.

        • The historical point of view is exactly why we remain armed. Well, that and the big law that says the government cannot disarm us.

          I think the problem you’re encountering in understanding the process is that under the European systems (which mostly derived from monarchies, whether they are today or not), the rights of the people flowed from the crown. Their rights were things granted to them by a sovereign, and so the European system is one in which government is fully in charge of the people.

          Under the American system, our rights flow from the Constitution. No king or man or President has the right to take them away because they, too, are under the same Constitution.

          It may seem outdated, but there are many, many people who are dead because they honestly believed “it can’t happen here” – or “it can’t happen here, again”. That is why our 2nd Amendment is important: to keep tyranny from ruling us again. As long as the government can’t disarm the people, the people can rebel.

  15. I have read this website for almost 2 years now, and I love it but now I’m questioning my loyalty to it. Think of the countless men and women that died to give us Americans our rights. And now that idiots who grew up with no parents and was more than likely on massive amounts of drugs are ruining these rights for us. America needs to hold people accountable for the things they do and for this website to try and side with communist,dictator ideology is just about the most unamerican thing you can do. If you are unhappy with my country then get out! Go to Britain or Australia, I promise no one will miss u.

  16. what a shame, I visited this site every two to three days and really enjoyed it. That ends now. Where it was saved to my favorites now it is being deleted. Maybe you guys can start pitching for peta and other left wing causes. Good luck with that, I won’t be back.

  17. americans are definitely afraid of losing their guns..what a bunch of cowards. are you really that scared of everyone? your neighbours? your fellow citizens?

    side note:
    how did britain’s gun crime double if guns were banned? im guessing they were brought in illegally? but that would mean their government and police forces failed to follow through with their plan, the actual banning didn’t fail.

    • It’s not a matter of fear, it’s a matter of liberty. Our nation was founded in revolution (from, my guess based on your spelling, your Empire) and our right to bear arms was enshrined as a part of our right to revolution.

        • According to the Founders who wrote the Amendment, it’s not about invasion, it’s about the right to revolution: the right to remind the government who is in charge. The Supreme Court has found that our rights to hunt and to self-defense also flow from this right.

          But invasion is a reasonable reason to keep guns. A quote of uncertain origin (often incorrectly attributed to Isoruku Yamamoto) is that Japan held off invading the US because they were concerned about every citizen having a gun. Even if the famous quote itself is bogus, it should give potential invaders a second thought before commencing an invasion.

        • It is to about invasion. The whole idea was that we have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves, in context with the times wherein we were able to go to war against England. Do you think that if we had had a peaceable separation from the motherland that this would have been included? It’s the same reason why we are not obligated to house military personnel, i.e. British officers and troops forcing themselves into the homes of colonists.

          I’m all for guns, btw. I’m just willing to make some compromises and sacrifices to make it harder for dangerous people to get a hold of them however I can. I think that the laws we have now though let too many people slip through the cracks. Of course, it’s up a gunholder to make sure that they keep their weapons safely locked away, but changing gun laws isn’t about changing it because of the responsible people.

          “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.”

          As this is a right to the people of America, that means that everyone has access to guns, and as such, when that right is misused, everyone suffers the consequences.

        • It’s partly about invasion, but you have to think of the historical context. The Revolution wasn’t against a foreign government – it was against the government of the colonies. These were mysterious invaders from another land – they were fellow British citizens and soldiers they were fighting with and for. It was, in every possible way, a civil war.

          Essentially, the 2nd Amendment was a reflection of these beliefs and matriculated from the English Bill of Rights both as an imitation and a reaction.

        • Second Generation American on

          It’s not about invasion, tho it isn’t as remote a possibility as it once seemed. If you knew your history, you’d understand that free people are often the victims of their own government. The worst tyrants in history…Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, to name a few…killed their own citizens, after they’d confiscated all the guns. Look up gun bans in Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union. That is what the Second Amendment is all about, an abusive government.


    Swimming pools are still more dangerous than guns and outlawing them would STILL not prevent drowning. Bathtubs are dangerous too and we put our children directly in them.

    I get your point with this list, you’re putting forth some compelling arguments for banning guns. If we could completely eliminate them from the country gun violence WOULD go down.

    I can see the dangers of letting Average Joe Civilian carry a gun to stop mass murders. Without proper training the Average Joe will be every bit as dangerous as a mass murderer. Same goes for home defense. I’d be willing to bet most homeowners buy a gun WAY beyond their needs to protect their home and would be very likely to injure someone next door.

    I’m suspicious of the “forest fires caused by gunfire” claim. I bet most of those fires were actually caused by careless campfire accidents. Nobody wants to say “I fell asleep and the fire took off with the wind” to the park ranger. I have seen fires start on a gunnery range when tracers were used, but for all the dry days and thousands of rounds we put down range no fires ever started from muzzle flash. I’d be more concerned about a stray round hitting someone than starting a fire; that’s the reason I do not fire my rifles on my property.

    I am with #( more or less. No modern civilian militia in the USA can accomplish what the National Guard and US Armed Forces can do in an emergency. They don’t have the money, organization, logistics or training to handle hurricanes, much less an invasion by a hostile nation.

    I’m done ranting, this list hasn’t swayed me away from private gun ownership one bit.

  19. #9 completely misunderstands the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment, but I’ll hold off for now…

    #8 is a hilariously faulty claim. Their source is Mother Jones, a notoriously left-leaning anti-gun group. Then he mentions (in passing) the Appalachian school shooting as proof it takes a couple of trained police officers to stop a shooting, but neglects to mention that the rest of the students were unarmed because, by Federal Law, schools are gun-free zones. Additionally, he neglects to mention that the 2 guys who stopped the shooting did so… with guns.

  20. #7 is based on the faulty Kellerman study (I’m guessing they’re using the 1993 study instead of the 1986 study that claimed you were 43 times more likely to harm yourself or someone close to you). I’d say more, but I’m going to hold off for now…

  21. How about make all guns illegal EXCEPT

    Revolutionary War era muskets/rifles.

    1. People would still be able to hunt and do recreational things.
    2. It would be hard t launch a volley of shots unless one was carrying a bunch of guns.
    3. They take a long time to reload, so in the event of a shooting most victims could probably run away.
    4. Any safety problems for the owner could be eliminated by modern technology.

    Also, the government could set up a rule where a gun is not allowed if it could fire x amount of shots in 10 seconds.

    • So if a woman was getting attacked by a criminal (who would likely ignore your “muskets only” rule), you’re OK with forcing her to take ~10 seconds (while running from her attacker) to pull her rifle she keeps in her purse, load it with gun powder from her powder horn (again, in her purse), loading the wadding, loading the lead shot, priming the pan, cocking the flintlock, and firing the weapon – all the while praying that her powder didn’t get wet?

    • Thecrowforever on

      Criminals won’t follow gun laws the will still have high powered weapons and ur gonna leave the civilians with 150 year old guns lol it a smart one

      • So why make it easy for them? We have many anti-drunk driving laws, and people still drive drunk. Does this mean that we scrap these laws?

        • Thecrowforever on

          That’s comparing apples to oranges, drinking effects how you think and makes you make bad choices, I think there should be better background checks and classes on how to use and care for the fire arm your trying to get and if u fail then you can’t get the gun. There should also be mental health aid, education and parents should be more informed in their kids lives to know if there are problems but to blame the gun and to think that taking it away will make things better is plain stupid

        • It’s already illegal for criminals to acquire guns. Exactly what’s your plan? Make it super-illegal?

    • Somehow I don’t think the criminals would be effected as much as those people who aren’t even the problem to begin with.

    • your statment is just so absurd so by that logic if your an american ..would you be ok with reverting every amendment of the bill of rights to technology that was around when it was written? so then would you be ok fort the first amendment being limited to only quill and paper because that was the avaialble technology at the time ??? i mean come on its called the land he free because we are supposed to be free!!!

  22. Gun crime is mostly caused – oddly enough – by criminals with guns.

    (Handguns, to be specific; so-called “assault weapons” kill less people than hands and feet do in the US, so going after them is absurd right off the bat. Why not band hands and feet too?)

    So the goal of regulation should be to target criminals and no one else.

    Any regulation beyond that will mostly end up restricting the people who aren’t the problem.

    • Yes. Crime is committed by criminals.
      Handguns are NOT assault weapons “so-called” or otherwise. Whatever your definition, an assault weapon is a long-arm.

      Are you claiming that more folks are beaten to death (“hands and feet”) than die from handgun fire? Needs certification.

      • I meant handguns, in contrast to “assault weapons.” Criminals with handguns kill a lot of people in the US every year, whereas assault weapons kill less people than those who aren’t even using a weapon. So why target assault weapons when they aren’t related to high rates of gun-related homicides? They’re not the problem so what’s the point?

        Besides this, it’s not the type of gun that needs to be restricted; it’s the type of person that needs to be restricted.

  23. Gun locks are provided free of charge at most local police stations.

    And as for not being able to shoot someone, I might not be able to shoot them pointblank in the head but if you break into my home I’ll def aim it in your direction.

    As for the rest of the non-sense on this list I leave you with these words: Alittle common sense goes a long way, but common sense ain’t so common!

    • Make sure you’re clear on the law with the “break into my home” thing. In some states, including my own, if they aren’t presenting a real and present threat to life, serious bodily injury, or serious sexual assault, then you do not have a right to use a firearm against them.

    • If someone is kicking in your front door, a gun with a lock on it will make a pretty lousy club. The baddies don’t phone ahead, you know

      As for “aim it in your direction”, there’s a recipe for taking out some neighbor when you miss (which you will. You know how hard it is to aim a pistol? Point-blank is messy, but it’s the only way to be sure).

      • Fact: Most guns used in violent crimes are stolen, not purchased. Im in law enforcement I know my stats. Guns locked in a cabinet, plus locked with an extra device on the trigger makes it less of a target. Fact: When your home is broken into you do have the right to use deadly force. If the perp lives they can and probably will sue, but will most likley loose. Here’s another fact for anyone stupid enough to break into my house I don’t live in a scary movie, Im not gonna go looking around in the dark for you, whispering out “who’s there?” Im gonna come straight at you in the light and whatever happens happens.

        • Fact: if you’re in law enforcement, you know that laws vary from state to state. In my own home state, the law only recently changed to allow us to us a firearm on someone breaking into the house in the past few years. HOWEVER… once they’re in the house, the “breaking” crime is done and any use of a firearm must be accompanied by a defense that shows your life was in danger.

          In duty to retreat states, you’re likely going to be arrested, go to court, and have to prove to a judge and jury that you did everything you could to stop the person prior to using your firearm.

        • 5minutes:

          Fact: You live in a state that cares not for whether you live or die.

          Fact: Your type of state is in the minoroty in this country so most do allow you to defend your life AND your property.

          Fact: If this type of treatment by those whom you have elected to office is acceptable to you, then sit there and shut up because you are getting just what you deserve. The rest of us are quite content knowing we have a value that isn’t granted by legislators.

        • Actually, most states have this mindset. The very, very loose standards of stand-your-ground laws found in Florida, for instance, are very much in the minority of this country. Fortunately, our state laws have changed recently and continue to change for the benefit of legal gun owners, but they’re still out there.

          Additionally, you have to ask yourself the question: do you really want to kill someone who’s in your house to steal your TV? There is an emotional – and I believe spiritual – cost to using a firearm on someone, which is something that many gun owners don’t consider.

          The point is: gun laws are complex, and what seems common sense to you may not be legal. Massad Ayoob has a lot of good information on this that I highly recommend you seek out.

    • Since doing away with the hardware ain’t gonna happen, we need to tackle the problem from the ownership end. It ought to be at least as serious to own a gun as it does to own a car.
      1) SERIOUS training, in both marksmanship and legal obligations and rights.;
      2) Strict licensing, based on demonstrating you mastery of #1. Periodically reviewed and renewed.
      3) Required liability insurance. Stiff civil and possible criminal sanctions for careless use of a gun; liability would be severe in cases of unreported theft or loss of a gun.

      • 1. Training is a good idea, but some people grow up on farms where they’ve grown up with firearms and know how to use them responsibly. I would replace this with “demonstration of knowledge of firearms use and basic firearms law”.

        2. Licensing is dumb. All it does is give the government a list of people who own guns. It’s nobody’s business who owns guns or how many because we live in America, which is founded on freedom, not “freedom so long as the government thinks it’s OK and can keep an eye on you”. Any licensing should happen at the dealer level, who will be held liable if they sell a gun to someone who shouldn’t have one.

        3. I would be more in favor of requiring insurance companies to eliminate the anti-firearms sections of existing liability insurance policies.

      • ahhh the good ol liability insurance debate so what your saying is that only people that can afford liability insurance have a right to protect oneself and their family?sorry single mother living paycheck to paycheck you cant afford insurance so you cant protect yourself

      • I’d agree with you about training, but since I already believe getting a drivers license is about 100X too easy, my guess you’d loose yours.

  24. Sam Mcallister on

    I do agree something must be done about gun control in the USA. But its a hard one to deal with.

    In Northern Ireland (uk) where I am from we are still allowed to own handguns and rifles (non semi) even legally for self defence. But we get vetted BIGTIME no criminal history is allowed. Police officer comes to house interviews you checks to see your gun safe is in a secure area. Gives you advice on safety.

    We also need good reason to own ANY gun for instance you need land owners permission to own a gun so you can hunt. Or a threat on yourself for a conceal carry pistol. Or just be in a shooting club. Basically have a reason lol.

    I dont think banning guns is the answer I just think ‘good reason and vetting is’. Would that be acceptable to US citizens? I would like to hear what you think

    • This is what happens in Australia also. Once a year, a police officer comes, visits the secure location, checks the owners gun lisence (they too must have a good reason to have a gun licence, pest control, recreation etc) and checks the owners criminal history and family history. Basically, hunting rifles and shotguns, and handguns are it, and in order to open a gun shop, it takes years to get approvals from both council and the people (protests).

      As an australian, I think Americans gun laws should reflect this, e.g. no semi’s, reason to own and use a gun, and only sell guns in a council approved shop.

      However, I’ve never been to America, nor looked into the American gun laws in detail, so I’m going off my own beliefs and opinions 🙂

    • Actually, no. That wouldn’t be acceptable. It is the old saying of “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile”. Today the concern is guns. A *RIGHT* that is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. The document that much of the remainder of our laws are based on.

      If we were to give up that right, even a portion of that right, it becomes that much easier to either erode the other rights guaranteed by our forefathers, or strip other privileges away. Like telling us that we can’t drive a pickup truck or a luxury car because they are wasteful and not good for our future. or how large a house that we can buy or how many kids we can have or, if you want to take it to the extreme, how long we should live since we all know that older people are a drain on our society in both the cost and the effort to keep them alive.

      Unlikely you say? Well, many of these restrictions are already in place in more than a few other countries. That is what has made THIS country great for so many years.

      The ONLY benefit I can see to becoming “just like every other country” is the fact that the illegal immigrant swoul stop flooding into the US since it wouldn’t actually be any better than where they were coming from.

      • Might want to redo your research on that one if your using Sandy Hook and Auora because they both used primarely hand guns, not assault weapons!

        • Not true.

          James Holmes used a combination of weapons, opening with a shotgun, and primarily using a Smith and Wesson M&P15 (their version of the AR-15). The M&P jammed after 30 rounds or so, which forced him to switch to a Glock 22.

          Adam Lanza’s primary weapon (contrary to bad reporting that claimed he used handguns or a shotgun) was a Bushmaster XM15, a semi-automatic AR-15-like weapon. He fired 50-100 rounds in 11-14 minutes (or 3-9 rounds per minute). He didn’t use a handgun on site at the school until he was sighted by a cop and he turned one on himself.

        • Thecrowforever on

          Adam Lanzas rifle was found in the trunk of his car there is video of the cops taking out, plus more people are killed my handguns and shotguns a year than assault rifles

        • Thecrowforever on

          There’s video of the cops taking the rifle out of Lanzas car trunk, he only use handguns and they are telling us it was the assault rifle so they can ban then, plus handguns and shotguns kill more a year that assault weapons, this list is a joke with false info and plain stupid reasons to have a gun ban, the cons of a gun ban is far greater than the pros

        • The video you speak of shows them removing a shotgun. Specifically, the Saiga 12g, which is a semi-automatic shotgun designed to look like an AK-47. His rifle was a Bushmaster.

      • Yeah, I don’t see why the public would need to have anything like that anyway, whether or not they were used in any of those recently publicized shootings. I could never really think of a legtimite reason why someone could use an assault rifle for productive use besides going down to a shooting range for the enjoyment of those gun enthusiusts (Not that it would be a bad thing.)

    • Assault rifles are nothing more than your granddad’s hunting rifle with cosmetic changes. Just because they’re big doesn’t make them more (or less) dangerous.

      • Ah, but they just look so cool, don’t they? We can play like we’re Special Forces without having to actually join up and go theough all that hard work.

        • Anyone who “plays” with a gun is going to kill or be killed. Guns are not toys and every responsible gun owner knows this.

  25. Such a shame that a site that I visited on a daily basis has taken this stance. Besides the fact that much of the info listed as points in the article are blatently false, to be so set against a right gauranteed by both the Constitution and the Supreme Court is shameful.

    Austrailia’s crime rate did NOT decrease after their ban was placed into effect much like Great Britain. Also, why not make the point that a assault weapon ban has been in place and was unable to reduce either violent crime or gun violence in general. What makes anyone think it will work this time around?

    Work to fix the problem, which, by the way, is with society. It is not with the guns.

    • We rarely take a stance. We put forth an opinion. You are free to disagree and write a counterpoint to this article. This isn’t an article that states we are against the constitution or against the right to bear arms, but we are asking everyone to rethink our (America) policies on guns. Surely there is a better way than we are doing it now. Or do you think there is no room for improvement?

      You will also note we sourced everything and even gave our own counterpoint at the end. Did you actually read the entire article?

      • Yes, I did read the entire article. Including the part that said “EXCESSIVE ANTI-GUN POLICIES WILL LIKELY NOT BE GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY”. Which implies that anti-gun policies alone ARE good as long as they are not EXCESSIVE. Anti-gun is anti-gun. I don’t think it matters one bit whether it is “excessive” or not. “Anti” has a meaning all it’s own and infers the same thing as “gun control” which is, btw, prohibited by the Constitution and isn’t subject to anyone’s “policy”.

        As for sourcing everything, I can quote Wikipedia “sources” here saying different. Will that be accepted as “proof” for the masses? I hope not. How about real facts? They tend to be much more believable.

        As for improvement, yes, there is room for improvement. But that improvement needs to be in how the ALREADY CURRENT LAWS are enforced and applied. The “improvement” YOU speak of is certainly NOT needed as the Constitution of the United States has stood its ground quite well without your “improvements” for a couple of centuries now. That would be like changing the dictionary definition of a word just to suit your ideas of what it should be.

        Once more, the issue I have with this whole mess isn’t whether gun laws should be changed or that killings, “mass” or otherwise, are still happening. It is with those who feel that precepts set forth in the Constitution have all of a sudden failed in their purpose. I contend that this is false and that society has failed to remain one that is civilized and harmonious with each other. The failure is not with the Constitution. It is is with the people it governs. When change is effected in that arena, it won’t be needed in the other and changing the “other” will destroy society more completely than can be imagined.

        • This article only has one link to Wikipedia, and it’s a common knowledge reference. You can easily look up ‘legitimate’ news sources from 2002 if you don’t believe Wikipedia about the Appalachian School of Law shooting.

      • Most of your reference sources are from leftist sites like Mother Jones and HuffPo. Maybe you should look at both sides of the issue also. Yes we can do better, but let’s get guns away from criminals and the mentally ill first.

    • You make all the right points. Making something illegal won’t stop someone from getting it. There are SO many examples of this. It’s not the guns causing problems, it’s our poor upbringing. I can’t stress that enough.

    • If you don’t want to blame an insanely high number of mass shootings on gun ownership and you accept that the negative influence of violent movies and video-games can be discounted as they are available the world over, you have to look at the percentage of American citizens who feel isolated, ignored and very very angry. Guns aren’t the problem, the problem is they just happen to be legal in a country filled with an extremely high percentage of mentally disturbed white males and can no more be blamed for bloodshed than an open box of razor blades left in a kindergarten classroom.