Changing the constitution and passing the required laws would be way harder than the process of confiscating the guns.

How is an actually true statistic a straw man?

Per your logic, you haven’t committed any crimes until you do. So therefore it should be banned.

Why does it matter if it’s a weapon or not? This argument baffles me.

I’m sorry, are you living in a world where nobody is fighting for increased regulation of handguns? Tell me where that is.

So what if it’s designed to be a weapon or not? I really don’t see how that’s relevant if it’s a device or substance that needlessly slaughters many people.

Nothing says intellectual superiority like word games and copied links to the works of others.

So you’re cool with losing the last .2?

Poor egotistical Billy, lost in pointless wordgames and metrics, pathetically looking for a moment to insert his pedantry into someone else’s conversation, and sucking himself off in the mirror while missing the greater point:

...not the 150,000 or so this article is about, no?

What I said is of the people shot by rifles the percentage of fatalities is higher than those shot by handguns.

You’re definitely better at sanctimony and copy and pasting I’ll give you that much.

If you’re not cool with murders and want to save lives, you should go after handguns first. Very few people are killed by long guns / AR pattern rifles / etc.

Which studies?

So what? You bought something for fun that’s deadly. By your logic it should be banned, no?

Alcohol is involved in 40% of all crimes.

So? It fucks you up and makes you commit crimes.

Sure can.

Nope. Completely wrong. Ammunition from most modern rifles exceed 2,500 feet per second. Most handguns are around 1000 ft/s. Rifle rounds cause far more fatalities as a percentage; ie: mass shootings have higher fatality rates because gun nuts use rifles.

There’s only one thing to do: strike these companies straight to Mexico or China.