Here’s an interesting thought: why does a report on violence against women start off with a blurb about self-defense with firearms, using the same old super-narrow definition of “self-defense” (that being, the attacker has to be shot AND killed to count)? Oh that’s right, so they can immediately claim this proves that…

Well, if you flip that a bit, “When I buy a gun, I think about shooting my partner and 20 other random people” is how a lot of Gawker commenters think most firearms owners’ minds work.

No no, please don’t interrupt, this circular-firing-squad-purge-the-heretic thing is hilarious.

So in other words, their utility and sentimental association is worth more to you than the lives of the people that might be harmed by them. Understood.

The collateral damage of your freedom of speech is that hate groups like the KKK and Stormfront can spread their message, organize, recruit, and incite people to violence.

It’s funny you mention support for abortion rights, have you noticed how similar the tactics of the anti-choice right-wingers and the anti-gun left wingers have become? Though I suppose we can give the anti-gun left wingers a gold star for not personally murdering anyone, they seem to prefer either wishing really hard…

Ban on automatic or semi automatic weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens. OK for law enforcement only.

What’s insane is that the US is at the lowest rate of violent crime in FIFTY YEARS and people like you are talking like we’re living in some Mad Max-style dystopia.

I’m happy to turn mine in if they all become illegal.

Let’s not talk about the killer’s motive here. MOTIVE DOES NOT MATTER.

This is utterly specious. There are certainly “legitimate reasons” that an amateur physicist or microbiologist might have for wanting to experiment with radioactive materials or strains of diseases. But their presence carries a the risk of them being misused, either by malice or neglect.

Why not? Because they’re dangerous, right? Because no matter what intention they may have been acquired with, their very presence causes harm to others, if not directly, than in a larger stochastic sense?

That’s because it’s not about making guns go away, it’s about eliminating the legal civilian ownership of firearms.

I’d like to cordially invite you to forcefully shove those data points directly back into the orifice you pulled them out of.

You’re really comparing weed and guns? Are you saying it’s impossible or unwise to ban anything? Nuclear weapons? Plague spores? Child pornography?

You’re lumped in with the lunatic fringe because your peers in the gun control movement still consider you to be a lunatic. A useful lunatic, perhaps. A lunatic they’ll entertain because they want your support, maybe. But at the end of the day, you’re still a gun-toting savage and when they’re done imposing the…

And the legitimate reasons outweigh the harm they cause? If another type of sporting equipment caused 300 deaths a year, it would be banned in an instant.

Because like most anti-gun screamers, that person believes we’re all trigger-happy morons who blaze away at anything that moves, plus he wants to paint a nice scary picture as well.

I do not need education.

It must be terrible to live in such a constant state of abject terror that you think 50 million or so people in the US are all incipient murderers.