Guns should be banned in the united states.

1) Sure, the pencil will not fail your test for you, but it was a major component in the failing process. The person with the tool makes the choice, but it is the tool that carries out the action. Getting rid of the tool would, thus, play a major part in no longer causing you to be able to fail the test. Now that were done talking about pencils, guns do the deed, but humans make the choice to kill, but it's the gun that does the killing. Take away the gun, and perhaps all murder won't stop, but a huge, major portion of it will. What you seem to care about it whether the civilian is defended. As I have shown, there are other manners of defense one can take that are less harmful to both the defender and attacker. You may not care about the life of the attacker, and if there were a weapon that only targeted the bad guys then we would not be discussing this now. But that's not the case. The case, that even you admitted (It is all in the hands of the individual whether or not to use the gun for protection or becoming a predator) is that BOTH sides can use the guns. Guns don't choose sides, they just shoot and kill. I noticed you didn't even bother to touch on the 'guns kill children in the home' point, which we can deduce means you concede that guns are dangerous to everyone, and therefore, that they are a hazard to everyone. I'm sure if there was a toxin contaminating the water supply in your neighbor hood that you'd want it irradiated because its a danger to both you and your neighbors. Well, what makes guns any different? Its the kind of ignorant thinking that fire will put out fire that has made guns on both sides of the argument such a problem. However, in my case, I've found the water: non-murderous weapons. They surpass guns because they 1. work just as well with defending your self, family, and home and 2. they don't kill, which includes on innocents. Unless you can find a way that guns surpass BOTH these qualities in full (100%, no exceptions) my non-violent substitutes are better than guns, making guns perfectly acceptable to be banned, as they are now both obsolete and overly dangerous. You need to define power, because as of right now, the only thing it seems you associate with power is death. But because it hasn't been defined, I will associate it with the power of defense, in which case I've shown numerous times that guns don't hold it all, and there are many other, better ways to defend oneself out there. 2) Self defense: As I stated above, and reiterate, my non violent solutions of body self defense, bear mace, and tazers work as well, if not better, than guns at self defense. A criminal can't kill with the gun if he's writhing on the ground with 10,000 volts running through his body, or his eyes burning like their on fire, or if he's just plain knocked out. Both parties have equal opportunity for the 'first shot', meaning the criminal could fire off the gun just as fast as the good guy with a tazer. The only difference is this time, we know who the bad guy is. If the bad guy wins, then it's the same outcome as if both had had guns. But if the defender wins, the criminal is not only in a considerable amount of pain, but will also be subdued by the authorities and be put in jail, where he'll have the pleasure of enduring prisons many 'pleasures'. Power is not just achieved by death, and as I have just pointed out, the blow of a gun does not necessitate the outcome. Guns are not necessary, and in association with how dangerous they are in general, not just to villains but to the innocent, they clearly must be banned. 3) As I have shown above, the fact someone is holding a gun to you does not instantly turn you into a defenseless blob of jelly. There are other options, but this time the real criminal is clearly defined. And how does my argument run in circles? Criminals are going to do it either way, but it does not mean that citizens need to stoop to the same level. Again, after multiple times, there are other ways to defend yourself and your properties, you just have to get passed the absurd idea that guns are all powerful. They are not, and make society worse on all spectrums. But with the banning of guns, the legal people (or 'good ones') will be clearly defined from the bad, making it easier for the cops to weed out the bad. Guns don't necessitate uber-defence, just one kind; all the other ones work just as well if not better, and keep both parties alive for due processing. Beat that. 4) Fallen into your own trap. If your going to bring a founding document into this you best have thought about it before hand. First off, you are thinking about the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which clearly states: 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. It does not say that just anyone can own a gun, it says a MILITIA. On Constitutional grounds alone, this means that any citizen who is not apart of a local militia yet still owns a gun is committing a FEDERAL FELONY. Therefore, if you only have America in perspective, all citizens not under militia enlistment must surrender their weapons or should be held accountable for crimes against the state. As far as tyranny goes, that's another job for militiamen. That's what the Founding Fathers had in mind incase of a corrupt government, not just a bunch of NRA fanatics with a skewed sense of what true security means, but an organized, trained, and gun-responsible militia, separate from the federal government for individual state protection. Here the entirety of Hitler's quotes, where he isn't scared so much of citizens, but specifically states that there should be no local militia, because organization, not just fire power, is key to a victory in battle: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler Just letting the Army possess guns would be dumb, but unless these individuals are registered individuals of a State's militia, they have no right to own, possess, or carry a gun. Guns do not hold all the power. There are plenty of methods that surpass guns in both their safety to innocents and their effectiveness against criminals. You have failed to show why guns are, apparently, the only good source of defense. Its effectiveness against criminals is under no objection, but you must also show how they are 100% safe against 'good guys' as well. On constitutional grounds, guns are banned already to private citizens, and are only supposed to be leased to militiamen. If the government needs to be overthrown, then that will be a job for the Constitutionally endowed members of the militias, not private gun owners. I have given appropriate alternatives to all your queries that make private ownership of guns both obsolete and unlawful. Protection does not come in one form, and the alternatives are all better, thus, fully enabling guns to be banned.