> A lot of the talking points you're repeating here are intentionally misleading

False. I listed a few facts that are easily verified.

> As you may not know, most of those 45'222 "gun-related injury" deaths are suicides

False. Roughly half are suicides, and not "most." Suicide by gun is a violent death. Your entire diatribe regarding suicide is a straw man.

> 70 million people died in World War II...

I paraphrased, and the title of the article is slightly ambiguous, leaving a tiny pinhole which you are trying to squeeze a straw man of epic proportions through. To be perfectly clear, more Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than the number of Americans killed in all US wars combined. In this statistic the number of Japanese, North Koreans or Vietnamese, etc., killed are not counted. It is only comparing the number of Americans killed by guns since 1968 to the number of Americans killed in all wars. Yes it is terrible so many have died in war, but unfortunately your argument here is still a straw man and therefore fallicious.

> It is indeed very inaccurate to say that most gun violence occurs in the US,

As stipulated, but I was merely making the point that the statement is more accurate than:

>> Almost all gun violence is international warfare

which is entirely false, and not even 1000 pages of straw man arguments can change that.

In order for your argument to be valid, as mine is, you must focus on what is said, as is, and avoid introducing new information only to attack it.

I understand some people really like guns, but no matter how much they like guns, it doesn't change the simple fact that the more guns there are, the more gun deaths there will be. This is a formula proven over and over, year after year.

It also doesn't change the fact that the Founders had no intention of arming the citizenry, and that our beloved 2nd Amendment is only referring to militias, and we know this beyond doubt from the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses, even though most gun owners can't seem to read the first 3 words of the Amendment. The salient point is not about regulation, it is about militias during a period of history that was so different from today that the 2nd Amendment no longer rationally applies, and people are dying because fanatics, those not exactly mentally stable, insist on owning guns, and not just one or two, but an entire arsenal. One of the statistics in that BBC article is missing something, which is the statistic that for every 100 US citizens there are 120 firearms. But only 1/3rd of Americans are gun owners, so a lot of them have more guns than they can carry or operate, which underscores their fanaticism and irrationality.

No one wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment, not even liberals, because "liberal" literally means tolerant, as in tolerant of those with insane ideas about gun ownership. Though it wouldn't be a bad idea to strike down those portions of DC v. Keller (2008) that overreach beyond the mandate of the Supreme Court to gut the 2nd Amendment, changing it from a selfless right to protect against tyranny to a redundant and selfish right to protect self or property. The Founders debated self-defense and intentionally left it out of the Amendment, because a right of self-defense is much older and more fundamental than the Bill of Rights. And Scalia was completely mistaken: most Americans are not confused about that, nor is there any significant agenda to include self-defense in the 2nd. If that agenda exists, it is of a vanishingly tiny percentage. DC v Heller weakens the 2nd immensely, and is part of a larger trend of dismantling the US Constitution piece by piece, after the suspension of habeas corpus and the continuing assaults on the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, and most recently, Article II. I wish the Right would just leave the US Constitution alone and be patriots instead of anarchists.