Why I believe gun control will never stopped a person's intent to kill.

Also, just as a an interesting side note, Kinder Eggs (chocolate shell with a toy in the middle) were banned from the US because of concerns of children being harmed or killed (choking). Guns are not.

Care to guess how many children worldwide have been killed by Kinder Eggs? 2.
Children gun deaths per year in the US? 1300 deaths, 5700 injuries.

Priorities.

originally posted by: superman2012
Also, just as a an interesting side note, Kinder Eggs (chocolate shell with a toy in the middle) were banned from the US because of concerns of children being harmed or killed (choking). Guns are not.

Care to guess how many children worldwide have been killed by Kinder Eggs? 2.
Children gun deaths per year in the US? 1300 deaths, 5700 injuries.
Priorities.

And something like 13,000 kids were killed in automobile accidents in 2016. But we gotta drive cars and keep them affordable, right? Priorities, indeed.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: superman2012
Also, just as a an interesting side note, Kinder Eggs (chocolate shell with a toy in the middle) were banned from the US because of concerns of children being harmed or killed (choking). Guns are not.

Care to guess how many children worldwide have been killed by Kinder Eggs? 2.
Children gun deaths per year in the US? 1300 deaths, 5700 injuries.
Priorities.

And something like 13,000 kids were killed in automobile accidents in 2016. But we gotta drive cars and keep them affordable, right? Priorities, indeed.

Unfortunately, in todays day and age, automobiles are a necessity. Can you say the same for firearms? All of them?

originally posted by: superman2012
Unfortunately, in todays day and age, automobiles are a necessity. Can you say the same for firearms? All of them?

Don't get me started on the need, in this day and age, for children.

a reply to: starwarsisreal

The idea isn't to prevent tragedy entirely, the idea is to make it harder to end many lives quickly.

Imagine for a moment a man with nothing but his bare hands about to go on a rampage. How many people can he kill or even harm before this deranged lone handsman is stopped? Probably not too many, but with a gun, a weapon designed specifically to inflict harm on other living things, he could probably hurt a lot more people in a shorter time frame.

Someone trying to build an explosive, rather than simply being able to grab a rifle and go on a rampage, has to take more time gathering materials and making the thing and has to have the knowledge necessary to do this. It's going to take more time and/or thought to use an unconventional weapon than for the person to simply grab a gun, something they might well already legally own, and use that.

So it isn't that gun control stops bombings or knife attacks, that isn't the point, and in fact bringing it up in discussions about gun control is basically just another red herring. Most of the opposition to gun control that I see comes in blatant red herrings that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Yes if we restrict access to guns someone with the intent to kill people might well devise another means of doing so but they won't be able to simply grab an AR-15 out of their gun cabinet and start ending lives on a whim.

In some cases this sort of thing becomes a Fallacy of Relative Privation rather like saying "even if we solve hunger in the USA people will still be starving around the world"

Even if we have gun control there will still be other forms of homicide.

Yeah, duh, but that doesn't mean gun control wouldn't do what it is supposed to do and reduce the number of gun deaths and mass shootings.

Now with an issue this complicated I don't really know how we begin to do proper gun control but I do get annoyed by the red herrings employed on both sides of the conversation which derail it into going nowhere.