If more people had guns then mass shooters would be stopped quickly and easily it should be common sense. It's outrages that time after time these shootings take place in "Gun-Free zones" the Walmart in El Paso is a gun free zone, the garlic parade in California was a gun free zone, when are law-makers going to start enforcing the second amendment and take real action that will prevent theses mass-shootings by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry protection.
There was a soldier in the mall next to the Walmart who had a gun and saved many children from potential harm, there was a man at Christchurch who managed to secure a gun from the shooter there and then managed to chase him off thus saving lives, an off duty border agent stopped a would-be mass shooter in a synagogue using a gun, a man in a nightclub opened fire and was killed by an armed citizen, the GOP Baseball game was a potential massacre prevented by armed people etc...
Besides that banning guns is stupid, criminals are not going to turn in their guns while law-abiding people will be forced too and then the only people with guns will be criminals...and oh the Government, and what can possibly go wrong with the Government taking away the defense of the people and them being the only ones with guns? And what could go wrong with the government trampling on the bill of rights? Surly nothing bad would come of that riightt??
I know it sounds cliché but a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun...it's not rocket science.
Why cant they be banned entirely? It worked for the UK.
Because America is much larger both geographically and population wise, as-well as having a different culture and mindeset towards personal freedom than the U.K. (Also the knife crimes in England are insane, especially when taking into consideration the size of their population and the countries size.)