More gun control

On a side note, I appreciate making your points irreducibly complex. I hate having to put out fires that aren't actually burning down my house, Lol. I accept your definition of small arms and then say I would probably reject some of the guns in that category, But I can't be sure. I'm kind of ignorant to gun models. But functionally I'm against any weapon that would allow a single person to inflict massive casualties within the window of standard police response time. This definition is necessarily broad since I make all of my arguments from the bottom up. Epistemologically speaking. You bring up a fair points about extremist nations in the middle east. But let's be fair and say that if the united states wasn't attempting to posture for the moral high ground, They would be a little more effective. I say posture because I don't simply assume they're taking the moral high ground. Just presenting that image and maybe sometimes they're right. I would also like to point out that no American militia would ever utilize tactics such as suicide bombings or using children for warfare. If you posit as much, I think it would hurt your argument more than help. You say the founding fathers had access to the most advanced weaponry of their time and used it. This is a non sequitur because it is not analogous. The best weapons used in the revolutionary war are far surpassed by some of the weakest weapons we have in modern day. I think their best weapon might have been cannons, Correct me if I'm wrong. A cannon could realistically kill maybe a dozen or so people depending on the area it hits. Possibly more, But I would never say more than 100 people unless they toppled a giant building or something. Compare that to a nuclear weapon and you see the glaring difference. You say murders happen more with handguns, This is also a non sequitur. Pistols and rifles are not analogous in this case because pistols are simply more popular. Also, Who would commit suicide with a rifle? It's just impractical. This naturally drives the death toll up for pistols. I don't buy into statistics unless they're robust because they tend to tell us the wrong things. Pistols can't have a robust enough data set because gun technology has evolved to rapidly which forces us to restart our data point or at least separate them from each other. I judge things functionally and functionally speaking, An assault rifle is more dangerous than a pistol and can kill more people more quickly. These are facts. I don't need conflated statistics to know these things. So I think they're much better indicators of the truth. To the suicide comment, It is not a matter of preference, Some ways are better than others. So what, You named another effect way to commit suicide. So let's put building gates up and it won't happen. Sweet! No we've stop two ways to commit suicide instead of one. Thanks for strengthening my point. Lol. On a side note, There is nothing I can't prove with logic and if it can't be done than it's probably something irrelevant anyways. I'm being hyperbolic when I say that, But I can definitely prove this one with logic because there are objective more effective ways to end one's life and that's a fact. Your floor