Guns don't kill people, people kill people

How would that stop you from using logic?

Ban guns and then what? Women jogging just have to accept being raped because they don't have a gun as an equalizer?

It won't work in making society safer overall.

Except that small Chinese plastic toys don't also save lives. You left that out. Common sense here.

Why would you compare accidental deaths to lives saved?

Gee, why didn't we think of that?

Where the fuck do you see multiple women out for their morning jog with a GUN on them?

the easiest solution to having a small dick and living in fear of everyone around you finding out is more important than someone else's dead loved ones. At least then all the cards are on the table. 

You're trying to refute a real life issue with a hypothetical

Is it your position that every woman who goes out jogging should be carrying a gun on them?

If yes, can you please explain how the prevalence of a dangerous product makes society safer?

 How many child murders before you consider gun control?

That assumes gun control is the answer. It's also an emotional argument when you consider how rare those events actually are. They are horrible, but to look at those events and say we need such sweeping policy changes is absurd. If you want a solution to these problems, we should examine the data rather than having the fearful response of "see gun, ban gun."

Says who? You're about equal with other developed nations on the crime index.

Are you talking about overall crime or gang violence here?

-->

@Mharman

 How many child murders before you consider gun control?

That assumes gun control is the answer. It's also an emotional argument when you consider how rare those events actually are. They are horrible, but to look at those events and say we need such sweeping policy changes is absurd. If you want a solution to these problems, we should examine the data rather than having the fearful response of "see gun, ban gun."

It is the answer. What, are these kids going to start building explosives? Growing anthrax? The problem is the easily accessible easy-bake death machines. 

Why does ordinary civilian use of firearms merit penalty as a consequence of the criminal use of firearms?

It is a weapon designed to kill human beings being used often and with great success to kill human beings. Why should I trust you to own such a thing? Why should your society pay the obvious horrific cost of your being allowed to own it? 

Many women would disagree that only an armed man is a threat to their life.

If yes, can you please explain how the prevalence of a dangerous product makes society safer?

It's an equalizer between extremely weak people and strong people. It is also a bit of an equalizer from future Nazi like governments. It is also an equalizer in dangerous Alaskan territory and other areas against bears and elk who can defeat humans in fair fights.

Gun advocates don't "pretend" that the gun does not factor into the equation; gun advocates acknowledge that a person's decision GROSSLY SUPERSEDES ANY FACTORS WHICH DON'T MATTER UNLESS THE PERSON'S INVOLVED. 

if it were legal for me to own a nuclear weapon and I purchased one, then used it to destroy my entire city, would you argue that the millions of deaths which resulted were merely "a person killing people" or would you recognize that the presence of a nuclear weapon was the problem?

Did the bomb arm itself? Did it detonate on its own? 

Yes, that's why we require people to get drivers licenses before they can legally drive

And how many accidents involve LICENSED drivers?

This is really simple; in this scenario a child is dead whereas without a gun in the picture today child would be alive.

Because, once again, you created a scenario where the child dies as a result of being shot. If the scenario consisted of that child dying as a result of being stabbed, or choked, then we'd acknowledge the knife use and the use of one's hands as painfully obvious.

Equalizer... As in everybody gets to be just as dangerous, which will make everyone safer.

What's wrong with people being harder to victimize? 

If you wanna die on that tree, source me some facts before the usual nonresponse.

Why does ordinary civilian use of firearms merit penalty as a consequence of the criminal use of firearms?

Practically speaking, if gun control can save tens of thousands of lives, I'm thinking that trumps  the rights of the hobbyist who loses his right to target practice, or hunt, or whatever legal use that the gun culture is saying is worth so many thousands of lives. 

Practically speaking, if gun control can save tens of thousands of lives, I'm thinking that trumps  the rights of the hobbyist who loses his right to target practice, or hunt, or whatever legal use that the gun culture is saying is worth so many thousands of lives. 

And the other side is saying gun ownership can save 100,000+ lives. They are thinking that trumps the rights of the gun grabbers.

Hay! Don't shoot the messenger!