There should not be more restrictions on guns or gun ownership

Yes, Guns may not stop many sexual assaults. Yes, Guns may not stop people from getting injured at large. Yes, Households of guns may be more likely to have gun violence, But when it comes down to it, Just because guns don't stop every single possible bad thing out there, Does not mean they are bad. In response to your claim that guns make a household more at risk, Nobody is forcing you to get a gun. If people want to get one, Who are you to say they can't? Fast food puts people at increased risk for heart disease, Why not ban fast food? The fact of the matter is that you have to come up with reasons why guns are a net bad, And you haven't. Just because they don't solve every problem, Just because they are deadly, Just because you CHOOSING to buy one puts you at risk, Does not mean that they are an inherent bad. As far as suicide goes, Do you really think that people won't just commit suicide in a different way? Regular people do not see guns and immediately want to die, They already want to die; they just have a slightly more simple to die, And this is coming from someone who had a neighbor who committed suicide with a gun. The feeling of walking out to the bus stop and seeing ambulances, A body bag, And one less comrade is ineffably tragic, But the person was already suicidal. That is how the world works. How about gun theft? Criminals break the law to get guns. If you ban guns, They will make them. Criminals break the law anyways, But the normal citizen who needs protection doesn't; therefore, Bad people will have guns, And good people will not. Guns can literally be 3-D printed by criminals. Are we going to ban the 3-D plastic next? There is nothing the government can do to remove guns off the face of the earth. Canada you say? Fun fact! After Canada banned guns in 1969 (when there was already a homicide rate high point), The homicide rate nearly DOUBLED from 1. 66 to 3 per 100, 000 [https://mises. Org/wire/gun-control-what-happened-england-ireland-and-canada]. Also, Yes, Canada had less of a homicide rate, But this is NOT NEW. Canada's homicide rate has fluctuated between 90% less (which is now) to 500% less (which was before Canada's gun ban) [https://ourworldindata. Org/homicides]. Gun bans have historically had NEGATIVE effects. SIGNIFICANTLY more people died in Washington D. C. , Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, And many other places because of gun restrictions. And don't even think about bringing up Australia. That's a faulty analogy because there is not enough time to judge long term effects, They had. 4% of the guns we have now, They are underdeveloped and don't have the raw materials to make guns compared to the U. S. So people can't make guns if they want to, And because gun smuggling would not remotely be a dire issue considering Australia is literally an entire continent surrounded by water Don't even think about bringing up statistics about gun violence going down because that doesn't mean a single thing as long as people are dying at increased rates. Don't argue like you did in the comment section that guns in the hands of police are good enough. Tell that to the citizens in rural areas that can't get police in time. Tell that to someone who is getting murdered. Tell that to someone who does not have a phone with them. It is not practical to call the police and wait for them to get there rather than get your gun when you are on the brink of being killed. The fact of the matter is that, I will say it again, The CDC, A government agency, Not an unreliable survey or poll, Estimated "162, 000 cases per year where someone almost certainly would have been killed of they had not used a gun for protection". Gun do kill people, Yes, But they also save much more people than they kill, And when it comes down to it, That is what matters most! As I already said, There are about 10, 000 homicides per year. That means that we would have 16 TIMES the homicides we have now. Repealing the 2nd amendment does not mean we stop crime, It means we lose our rights and at the same time much more people die! You also argued in the comment section that school shootings and accidents happen. Yes this stuff happens, And it is devastating; however, The fact of the matter is LESS PEOPLE DIE with guns than without them. Individual tragedy does not justify a large scale solution. This is the problem with new gun restrictions of any kind. Yes there should be background checks. No there should not be automatic or assault weapons (no the AR in AR-15 is not assault rifle, It stands for ArmaLite). Yes there should not be bump stocks (this is a not a gun restriction; it is a gun accessory restriction, And the NRA even supports this). There is a common misconception that there is a concrete line between the 'good guns' and the 'ban guns'. This is false. People say "ban assault rifles" even though they are less deadly than many shotguns because shotguns can shoot faster, And every shot is actually 6 to 200 pieces of shrapnel. Many handguns are much more deadly too because you can shoot them faster, Hit more people, Carry more handguns so you don't even have to reload, And their bullets break apart on impact hurting more internal organs. As someone who is a former boy scout who has shot all these types of gun, I know from personal experience that this is the case. Whether you like it or not, Banning guns or restricting them more than they already are won't do anything. People who are so messed up that they murder people will not change their behaviors just because there are no guns. They found this out the hard way in Great Britain where now they are literally implementing knife control. My question to you is simple. Will you stop acting out on how you feel about guns, And actually look at the statistics? That's all it takes to realize gun control is not the answer. Sorry for the read!