Guns are not the problem

Yes, I’m focusing on homicides in my discussions, and I’m using several official unbiased sources to pull the numbers from while you are using sites which have an agenda against guns and are twisting the data or just lie on the data to fit their narrative. This is my point, that guns are not the problem, they do not cause more death, they cause less death.I’m not denying guns kill people. Just because guns kill people doesn’t mean it’s the problem. As I have shown from multiple sites guns reduce homicides, rape and robbery. Get out of your bubble. Guns are a tool that kills, but overall saves lives. Unlike cars which is a tool, that does not save ANY lives, and kills three times as many people. You didn’t respond about cars, nor do you feel like they need to be banned. I’m going to use your psychopath with a gun example. Now if guns are banned he’s still going to kill people. I have yet to see a dead psychopath kill anyone. I’m glad you brought it up. You are three times more people die from falling than homicides by guns. Don’t you think ladders are too accessible? I’ve never seen a ladder save any lives, all it does is kill people! If you thought the above paragraph was ridiculous, awesome, because that’s your argument. Ladders and cars kill three times more people than homicides. THREE TIMES. If we use your stance then you should be on board to ban them. You cannot prevent a “killer” from getting a deadly weapon. The worst mass killings used a bomb, and all those ingredients are easily purchase without a background check. Let’s take the Orlando shooting killed 50 and injured 53. http://timelines.latimes.com... Let’s compare that to the Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people and injured over 500. http://www.masslive.com...The worst bombing kill three times as many people and injured ten times as many people as the shooting. The ingredients used in that bombing are easier to get than a gun. Check the two lists and you’ll find bombs a lot deadlier than guns when we talk about mass killings. And if you wanted to, you could make a bomb out of ingredients that required no ID, no background check, or anything. Let’s go back to your stance. If you can keep fertilizer away from people, why aren’t we? Why are there so many fertilizer deaths if fertilizer isn’t the problem? Shouldn’t we keep it out of the hands of people who we don’t know what their intentions are? Why should we sell fertilizer without a background check? To plant crops? There is barely any threat of starvation in the US, this seems like an unacceptable risk to let them have fertilizer. They don’t need to grow their own crops; they can just buy them at the store like everyone else. Which is more important to you, a garden or a life? In conclusion, the list of things that are more likely to kill against your will in the US over a gun is high. Homicides account for less than 1% of the deaths in this country, and as I have shown guns deter even more deaths from happening unlike cars, ladders, and most likely even fertilizer. (we don’t have a big starvation problem in the US) If the idea of getting rid of cars, ladders, and fertilizer is ridiculous to you, then the idea of getting rid of guns should be three times as ridiculous. I am using these examples to prove a point, and that point is that guns are not the problem, just like cars, ladders, and fertilizer aren’t the problem. We will always have violence, and well will always have a small percentage of people who prey on others. This small group expands when they have no fear for their own life. As a 6ft 2in male I can overpower a good portion of the population, but I have a daughter who isn’t 6ft 2in, and although there are some non-lethal alternatives, they all involve risking that they will work. Death works on everyone, no exceptions. As colt said he may not have made man, but he made all men equal. And I’m a big advocate of equality.