There are many arguments against banning guns, including claims that there are already too many guns in the U.S., that reducing gun ownership would not reduce violence and that criminals and mass shooters may still acquire guns if they are illegal. Many proponents, such as The Clause, argue that banning guns would actually create a less safe society.
According to The Clause, there are 300 million privately-owned guns in the United States, which is about nine guns for every ten citizens. Though measures to disarm citizens have been successful in other countries, such as Australia, the sheer amount of guns in the United States, coupled with the country's culture of gun ownership, makes banning guns impractical, if not impossible. Previous attempts to further reduce or restrict gun ownership actually caused both gun sales and membership in the National Rifle Association to increase.
The Clause also argues that banning guns would not keep them out of the hands of criminals, who often acquire their guns illegally. Despite boasting some of the country's most stringent gun laws, Connecticut was the site of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012. Banning gun ownership, The Clause argues, would simply disempower ordinary, law-abiding citizens, who would have no means of defense against criminals wielding illegal guns. Additionally, gun proponents claim that reducing guns would be unlikely to reduce actual instances of violence.