Anti-Gun Control Arguments 2025: Facts the Gun Control Lobby Suppresses

Last Updated: Mar 2, 2026

Supreme Court cases from 1876 to 2025 support the Second Amendment’s original intent as an individual right to keep and bear arms.
America’s 850,000 law enforcement officers have no duty to protect its 336 million civilians.
No armed and united population has ever fallen to tyranny in world history.
Strict gun control in other countries has saved fewer than 2 people per every 100,000.
91% of mass shootings in the U.S. occurred after sweeping federal gun control legislation.

We provide facts and only cite reputable sources. You can review our sources here.

The Top Arguments Against Gun Control

1) Constitutional Argument: The Natural Right to Self-Defense

Per several Supreme Court cases, the Constitution protects the natural rights of all Americans, and rights such as the Second Amendment exist to limit the power of the government.

The Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Landmark Second Amendment Spreme Court Cases

Landmark Second Amendment Supreme Court Cases:

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) – The U.S. Congress cannot infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, a right which exists despite the Constitution.
Presser v. Illinois (1886) – All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government, and the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.
U.S. v. Miller (1939) – The Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms that do not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well-regulated militia.
Lewis v. U.S. (1980) – A felony conviction is a sufficient basis for prohibiting the possession of firearms.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) – The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, regardless of their affiliation with any militia.
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) – The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states.
Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) – The Second Amendment includes all bearable arms, including those that did not exist at the time of the founding.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) – The burden of proof is on the government before prohibiting individuals from carrying firearms.
Garland v. Cargill (2024) – Bump stocks do not convert firearms into machine guns for the purposes of federal gun control laws.
United States v. Rahimi (2024) – Temporary disarmament of individuals found by courts to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another is consistent with the Second Amendment.
Bondi v. Vanderstock (2025) – The 1968 Gun Control Act does permit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to regulate some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames and receivers.

2) Ethical Argument: Gun Control Limits People’s Right to Self-Defense

Gun control hinders individuals’ ability to protect themselves, their families, and their communities from threats. Limiting the rights of peaceable citizens, based on the actions of criminals, is unethical. Americans have a right and a need to defend themselves without government intervention and restrictions.

Understanding the Reality of Self-Defense: There is a need for self-defense in America.

Only 850,000 law enforcement officers exist to protect over 336 million Americans. ⁵
Law enforcement officers have no actual duty to protect American civilians (Warren v. D.C., Castle Rock v. Gonzales). ⁶
The national average for police response time is 10 minutes and thirty seconds (which varies with department and locale). ¹²
363 out of every 100,000 Americans were victims of violent crime in 2023.
15,186 individuals were murdered in 2024. ¹⁴

3) Historical Argument: Disarmament Leads to Tyranny

Infringements upon the Second Amendment give the government more power over natural human rights, which has led to tyranny in the past. An armed and united population is better equipped to fight crime and resist tyranny.

Historical Context: Tyranny poses a greater threat to unarmed American civilians than criminals do to armed Americans.

262 million people were killed by their own governments during the 20th century.
The Weimar Republic implemented strict gun control before Hitler rose to power and committed genocide.
Mussolini’s fascist regime implemented gun control to seize power and ensure uprisings were unsuccessful.
No armed and united population has ever fallen to tyranny.

4) The Statistical Argument: Gun Ownership Does Not Lead to More Crime

Armed civilians in the U.S. are unlikely to commit crimes. Areas with relaxed gun control laws do not have higher rates of violent crimes or homicides.

Comparing Global Crime Rates: Compared to other countries with fewer guns, America is safer. ^{1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 17, 18}

Countries With the Lowest Homicide Rates:

The United States has 148 firearms per 100 people.
In 2023, the homicide rate in the U.S. was 5.3 per 100,000; the violent crime rate was 363 per 100,000.
The United Kingdom (England and Wales) has 4.6 guns per 100 people.
In 2023, the homicide rate in the U.K. was 0.83 per 100,000; the violent crime rate was 826.5 per 100,000.
Australia has 13 firearms for every 100 people.
In 2023, the homicide rate in Australia was 2 per 100,000.

Countries With the Highest Homicide Rates:

Ecuador has 2.4 firearms per 100 people.
In 2023, the homicide rate in Ecuador was 47 per 100,000.
Haiti has approximately 4.3 firearms per 100 people.
In 2023, the homicide rate in Haiti was 40.9 per 100,000.
Honduras has 14.1 firearms per 100 people.
The homicide rate in Honduras is 31.4 homicides per 100,000 in 2023.

5) The Cost-Benefit Argument: Gun Control Programs Are Ineffective and Costly

The cost of gun control programs in the U.S. outweighs any potential benefits. The sheer numbers of firearms and American civilians makes gun control ineffective.

Comparing Global Gun Control Programs: Homicide and violent crime rates did not substantially decline after gun control implementation in other countries, and gun control is too costly to justify the results. ¹⁵

Canada: In 2004, Canada spent $2.7 billion ($3.3 billion dollars adjusted for inflation) to register firearms. The records were ordered destroyed by courts due to the country’s constitutional protections of that right.
Australia: Australia spent $230 million to confiscate firearms during the 1990s. The country has more guns today than it did 20 years ago.
The U.K.: The United Kingdom spent $2 million in the 1990s to confiscate 162,000 firearms. The country reduced homicides by fewer than 1 person per 100,000.

6) Practical Argument: Criminals Don’t Follow Gun Laws

Studies show that the threat of incarceration does not deter criminals, who frequently bypass gun control laws by obtaining firearms on the black market. Violent criminals often reoffend following short incarcerations.

Common Sense Crime Control vs. Gun Control: The issue with guns in the U.S. is not that people can purchase them, but rather that violent criminals roam freely and have access to many dangerous objects. ^{13, 19}

Where Prisoners Have Obtained Firearms in the Commission of Crimes

A 2016 survey showed where prisoners had obtained the firearms they used in the commission of their crimes:
- 43.2% purchased firearms off the street or from underground markets.
- 25.3% obtained firearms from individuals via loan, trade, or gift.
- 17.4% received firearms from other sources (e.g., found or stolen).
- 10.1% purchased firearms from retail stores.
- 4% acquired firearms from multiple sources.
Violent offenders often reoffend after being released from prison.
- A study published in 2019 showed that those who use firearms during the commission of crimes recidivate at a rate of 68.1% within eight years. (Source 13)
- The average time spent in prison for a violent offense is 4.8 years.

7) The Hard Truth Argument: Gun Laws Don’t Stop Mass Shootings

A state’s number of mass shootings does not correlate with its gun control laws. Some states with strict gun control laws have more mass shootings than those with very few gun control laws (even when population disparities are accounted for).

91% of mass shootings (defined by the FBI as “four or more dead in a public place with no ties to family or gang violence”) occurred after federal gun control initiatives (background checks, gun-free zones, firearm bans, component bans, etc.). (Source 11, 10)

State-Level Mass Shooting Data: There is no correlation between state gun control and mass shootings.

Alaska: Permitless carry, no universal background checks, no red flag laws, no magazine bans – 0 mass shootings since 2003
California: Strict gun control (magazine, ammo, and firearm bans, universal background checks, red flag laws, etc.) – 30+ mass shootings since 1966
New Hampshire: Relaxed gun control (no bans, background checks, red flag laws, etc.) – 1 mass shooting since 1985
Texas: Mixed gun control laws (some firearm and ammunition restrictions, age limits) – 21 mass shootings since 1966

Key Takeaways: As of 2025, there have been 151 mass shootings in the U.S. since 1966. Federal and state gun control laws have failed to stop mass shootings, and may have actually increased mass shootings by disarming civilians.

8) The Slippery Slope Argument: Public Safety vs. Individual Liberty

Gun control advocates believe public safety is more important than individual liberty, whereas Second Amendment advocates believe gun control does not work and that individual liberty is more important.

Pro-Gun Control View: Gun control may prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands.

Pro-2A Rights View: Gun control measures are ineffective and disarm peaceable citizens.

Critical Questions:

Are infringements on a right worth a little public safety?
Does the individual or the community have a duty to protect?
If given the power to dictate who can keep and bear arms, will the government still respect individual liberty?

Gun Rights Must Be Protected

Criminality is a multifaceted problem that requires more than one solution. Opponents of gun control believe the government will not stop regulating until civilians are barred from owning weapons altogether, and assert that gun control doesn’t actually save lives. Proponents for gun control believe everyone in our society has a duty to comply for the greater good.

Historical and current evidence suggest that governments are unable to protect civilians as effectively as individuals can protect themselves. Thus, gun rights advocates see maintaining the right to keep and bear arms as crucial for personal safety and liberty.

Sources

Written by

Cassandra McBride