The world should not have crime. And in such a world, guns would not be needed (excluding for sport).

To play devil’s advocate and get the conversation going (please don’t down vote), the idea is primarily coming from US citizens whose constitutional amendment states that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. The idea behind it is self preservation (the right to live and defend yourself) and fight against government tyranny. Which, given the origin of the US, that last one is of valid concern. It’s not about the love of guns (though many do), but upholding that amendment.

The oppositional approach as I understand is if guns are illegal, there will be no mass shootings.

I don’t have an answer. I don’t have any guns, and I hate hearing about shootings. So here’s some questions to consider:

• Will laws banning firearms work against criminals? If not, who now has all the guns?
• How would we handle cases of tyranny where the government controls all militia?
• Those who intend to kill, assuming that can’t illegally obtain a gun, will they still kill? (Homemade explosives, mass stabbings, probably more) If killing people is already illegal, then how will making guns illegal make things any different long-term?
• Given the high percentage of shootings being gang on gang violence, which is illegal by the way, will new laws help?
• Statistics is complicated. Cars kill way more people, do we outlaw them? Knives kill people, do we outlaw those too? How do we measure statistically what laws will work and what won’t?
• How do you outlaw and then remove 400,000,000 guns in the US?

It’s complicated, genuinely. But people argue about it so vehemently that no ground is ever gained in the conversation. I think both sides are in favor of not killing people, but want to go about it in different ways.