Banning Guns Won’t Save Lives

Zion Patriot,

We’re told that banning guns will save lives. But what if the opposite is true? What if taking away guns means more innocent people die?

That’s not speculation. The CDC itself — in a 2013 study commissioned under the Obama administration — found that firearms are used defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times every year in the United States. In many cases, not a single shot is fired. The very presence of a firearm deters crime.

Take away the gun, and you take away that defense.

Guns Save Lives — Quietly

The headlines rarely tell these stories, but they are everywhere:

  • A mother stops an intruder threatening her children.
  • An elderly man deters burglars with a single warning shot.
  • A store clerk survives an armed robbery because he was armed himself.

These aren’t hypotheticals — they are real defensive gun uses, happening daily across America. When measured honestly, firearms prevent far more crimes than they cause.

If guns were banned, all of these life-saving defenses disappear.

What If Guns Were Banned?

To believe in a ban, you have to imagine that the government could enforce one. But could it? Let’s walk it out.

Step 1: Enforcement
There are over 400 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. today. To ban them would mean confiscation — either through mandatory “buybacks” (a polite word for forced surrender) or door-to-door seizures. Noncompliance would be met with arrests and prison. That means the government would have to threaten, or even use, violence against its own citizens — millions of them.

Step 2: Black Markets
Even if such a ban were attempted, guns wouldn’t vanish. Look at Mexico, Brazil, or Chicago. Strict gun bans exist, yet criminals have no shortage of firearms. The only difference is that law-abiding citizens are left defenseless while gangs and cartels thrive.

Step 3: Guarantees?
Could the government ever guarantee zero guns in America? Of course not.

  • Drugs are banned, yet fentanyl is in every city.
  • Prohibition banned alcohol, but it only made organized crime richer.
  • Human trafficking is illegal, yet it operates in the shadows.

A gun ban would do the same: it wouldn’t eliminate firearms — it would eliminate lawful defense.

Step 4: The Result
The only people left armed would be criminals and the government. The balance of power tips entirely away from the people.

The “Assault Weapon” Illusion

Gun control advocates often reassure Americans: “Don’t worry, we’re not coming for all your guns — only the assault weapons.” But here’s the problem: they can’t even define what an “assault weapon” is.

The term doesn’t describe how a firearm functions — it describes how it looks. The 1994 federal “Assault Weapons Ban” targeted features like pistol grips, folding stocks, or bayonet lugs — cosmetic details that have nothing to do with lethality.

In reality, the firearms most often labeled “assault weapons” are the AR-15 and AK-47 style platforms. But here’s the inconvenient truth: according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, more people are killed every year in the U.S. with hands, feet, and fists than with all rifles combined — not just ARs or AKs, but every rifle of every kind.

That means the weapon demonized as the greatest threat to public safety is statistically used less often than human fists.

And here’s the kicker: let’s say the so-called “assault weapons” were banned tomorrow. Would violence vanish? Of course not. The numbers are too small. Very few murders are committed with rifles to begin with. Which means the ban wouldn’t save “very many lives” at all — and the activists pushing bans know it.

So what happens next? They move on to the next category-du-jour. First ARs. Then all semi-automatics. Then handguns, which are used in the majority of crimes. Once the principle of banning guns is accepted, the scope only widens.

The truth is, the phrase “assault weapon” is not a technical category. It’s a political weapon. And it’s aimed not at criminals, but at the rights of law-abiding citizens.

The 1994 U.S. Assault Weapons Ban: A Failed Experiment

Gun control advocates often cite the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994–2004 as proof that restrictions work. But the data tells a different story.

The ban targeted rifles with cosmetic features — pistol grips, folding stocks, flash suppressors — while leaving equally lethal firearms untouched. As a result, criminals easily substituted other guns, and the law had little measurable effect.

According to studies commissioned by the Department of Justice:

  • No significant impact on overall gun crime. The ban did not reduce gun violence in any measurable way.
  • Rifles were never the main problem. Even before the ban, so-called “assault weapons” were used in only a tiny fraction of crimes.
  • Once it expired, crime didn’t spike. After 2004, gun violence continued its long-term decline, despite AR-15s and AKs becoming the most popular civilian rifles in America.

In other words, the U.S. already ran the experiment. Banning “assault weapons” did not save lives. It only restricted the rights of law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to stop criminals.

International Lessons: The Myth of Gun Bans

The UK: Knife Crime Nation

Gun control advocates often point to the United Kingdom as a “success story” of strict gun laws. But reality tells a different story. After nearly all firearms were banned, violence did not vanish — it simply changed form.

Knife crime in the UK has exploded to the point that London rivals New York City in homicide rates. Headlines routinely describe mass stabbings, teenagers carrying machetes, and gang violence with blades. The government’s response? Knife bans. Citizens have been told they cannot carry basic items like pocket knives, and in some cases even common kitchen knives are being restricted. Police have installed “knife surrender bins” in public areas.

And yet, stabbings continue. Why? Because the problem was never the tool — it was the intent of the criminal. Disarming citizens of guns did not eliminate violence. It only left the law-abiding more vulnerable, while criminals simply switched weapons.

This is the real-world proof of the principle: bans don’t end violence — they shift it. When the government takes away effective means of defense, it doesn’t create safety. It creates helpless victims.

Australia: The Buyback Mirage

After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, Australia implemented sweeping gun bans and mandatory buybacks. The ban is hailed as a success — but the facts tell a different story:

  • Homicide and suicide rates were already declining before the ban, and continued on the same trend afterward.
  • Mass killings didn’t end — they shifted. Australia has seen mass murders by arson, stabbings, and even shootings despite the bans.
  • Black-market firearms remain common, while law-abiding citizens — especially in rural areas — were stripped of self-defense.

Result: violence didn’t vanish. Only lawful gun ownership did.

Japan: Order Without Liberty

Japan is often cited as proof that strict gun bans can work. Civilian firearm ownership is nearly nonexistent, and gun crime is almost zero. But here’s the catch:

  • Japan is one of the most homogenous, low-crime cultures on Earth, with deep traditions of social order and conformity.
  • Crime is rare because of culture, not laws. The same restrictions in a diverse, high-crime nation like the U.S. would not yield the same results.
  • And Japan pays a price: citizens have no practical right to armed self-defense. When violence does erupt (such as the 2019 Kyoto Animation arson that killed 36), the unarmed are entirely helpless.

Result: peace is cultural, not legislative — and it comes at the cost of liberty.

The Global Lesson

From London to Sydney to Tokyo, the pattern is clear: banning guns does not end violence — it only changes its form, and it always leaves ordinary citizens more dependent on the state.

Guns as Equalizers

This is what the gun control lobby never admits: firearms are the great equalizer. They give the elderly, the weak, and the vulnerable a fighting chance against the strong. They allow a woman to stop a violent attacker. They allow families in rural America to defend themselves when police are 20 minutes away.

Take away guns, and you don’t take away violence. You just take away the victim’s ability to resist it.

The Paradox of Gun-Control Cities

Gun-control advocates often point to places like New York, Chicago, or Washington D.C. as models for the rest of the country. These cities have some of the toughest firearm restrictions in America — bans on certain weapons, strict permitting, and limits on carry rights.

And yet, they consistently suffer from some of the highest rates of gun violence.

  • Chicago has long been infamous for its shootings, despite layers of regulations and bans.
  • Washington D.C. had one of the nation’s highest murder rates during the years its handgun ban was in effect.
  • Baltimore and New Orleans, both with strict controls, continue to rank among the most dangerous cities in America.

Meanwhile, states with higher rates of lawful gun ownership — such as Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine — have some of the lowest crime rates in the country.

The lesson is clear: laws that restrict the rights of the law-abiding do not disarm criminals. Instead, they create a lopsided balance of power, where those willing to break the law dominate communities stripped of their means of defense.

The Deadly Truth About “Gun-Free Zones”

There is one thing nearly all mass shootings in America have in common: they take place in so-called “gun-free zones.”

  • Schools, movie theaters, shopping malls, and workplaces that ban firearms are consistently chosen as targets.
  • Why? Because killers know there will be little to no resistance. A “gun-free” sign does not stop evil — it only guarantees that law-abiding citizens will be unarmed.
  • According to studies compiled by the Crime Prevention Research Center, over 90% of mass public shootings in the U.S. since 1950 have occurred in places where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms.

The Nashville school shooting in 2023 revealed this in shocking clarity. The shooter wrote in her manifesto that she had considered another school — but decided against it because it had armed security. Instead, she chose a school where she knew no one would shoot back.

The logic is undeniable: criminals don’t obey signs, and killers don’t respect policies. The only people who follow “gun-free” rules are those who might otherwise stop an attack.

Far from creating safety, “gun-free zones” create hunting grounds for predators.

More Guns, Less Crime

Gun control advocates insist that more firearms in circulation must mean more violence. But the American experience shows the reverse.

  • Since the 1990s, the number of privately owned firearms in the U.S. has skyrocketed — with record-breaking sales in the 2000s and 2010s.
  • During the same period, violent crime dropped by more than 50% nationwide.
  • Even as AR-15s and handguns became the most popular firearms in America, the murder rate fell to historic lows.

The only recent spike came during the pandemic years — driven by social unrest, economic stress, and reduced policing — not by lawful gun owners suddenly turning violent.

The trend is clear: more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens does not equal more crime. If anything, an armed population has coincided with the longest sustained decline in violence in modern U.S. history.

The Safety Myth

Banning guns is sold as “safety.” But it’s a false safety — a Safety Lie. History shows that when governments disarm the people, the result is never peace. It is always the concentration of power in the hands of the few, and vulnerability for the many.

The evidence is clear: banning guns doesn’t save lives — it costs them. Liberty saves lives, because liberty allows us to defend them.

2A News