U.S. may be the largest economy in the world and the country has made significant progress in terms of many social issues including racial equality but the current gun control laws remind us there is still a long way to go. It is a troubling realization guns are so easy to acquire in the U.S. as compared to many other industrialized nations such as U.K. and Australia. Guns should be banned in the U.S. because gun-related violence imposes huge economic and social costs on the society.

The opponents of gun control laws often cite the 2nd Amendment as to why such a measure would be unconstitutional. But such an argument is weak because it ignores the historical factors that prompted the passage of 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment emphasizes the importance of a well regulated militia (Legal Information Institute) which tells us that the nation’s military was not as sophisticated in the early days of this nation as it is today. Thus, there was a need for citizens to be proficient in handling arms. In addition, the security infrastructure was weak and cops or sheriffs were not adequate to ensure personal safety. In fact, arguments could be made for citizens’ right to bear arms even a century ago. But things have changed. Now the nation’s military is perfectly capable of defending the nation. In addition, the local security infrastructure is well developed in the U.S. as it is in other industrialized nations such as U.K. and Australia. Thus, there is no justification why citizens should be allowed to bear arms because it weakens the state’s ability to prevent them from falling into irresponsible hands as recent tragedies like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (Candiotti and Aarthun) demonstrate.

The opponents of gun control laws also claim guns don’t kill people but people kill people. This argument should be used to allow people to bear other kind of weapons such as rocket launchers, too. In fact, countries like Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear bombs, too because rocket launchers and nuclear bombs don’t kill but instead terrorists and countries kill. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that the presence of gun increases the probability of it being misused. According to CDC, guns are responsible for two-thirds of homicides in the U.S. (Martelle). One could argue there are other tools, too that could be used to commit murder such as knives and while that may be true, their destructive potential is quite limited. The shooter in Sandy Hook tragedy could have killed some with a knife, too but it is highly improbable he could have attacked as many people as he did with a gun. Guns may not kill people but their presence increases the probability of them being misused and when they are misused, the potential for harm is quite significant.

Guns should be banned because such laws work as other industrialized nations have demonstrated. After Australia introduced strict gun control laws, firearm-related homicides fell by 59 percent between 1995 and 2006. Strict gun control laws in Britain have also led to decline in firearm-related deaths. But arguably the best example is Japan where only eleven people died from guns as opposed to staggering 12,000 in the U.S. in the year 2008 (The New York Times). Thus, guns should be banned in the U.S. to significantly reduce gun-related violence.

Guns should be banned because the objectives 2nd Amendment intended to meet are irrelevant today. Guns may not kill people but then nuclear bombs also don’t kill people. Guns are dangerous in the same manner as nuclear bombs in that they increase the probability of being misused and the potential for harm is huge. The evidence from around the world such as Australia, U.K., and Japan also shows gun control laws work and it is unfortunate U.S. is one of the few if not the only industrialized country that has made such a little progress towards gun control laws.