The point being some things are more dangerous than others. We would not allow a civilian to own a battle tank or a nuke. Bombs are illegal. An assault rifle may be too much. And regulating cars shouldn't be easier to understand than regulating guns. In order for me to drive legally I have to take a test to get licensed, register my car, and insure my car. To own a gun legally I just go to a gun show and buy one with no questions asked even if I'm a convicted violent felon or mentally ill.

To say that criminals are gonna break the law to argue that a law shouldn't exist isn't a strong point. Here's the flaw: then why have any laws at all. Every law is broken. Criminals do more than wield guns. Should we legalize rape because some criminals still raped someone even though it was against the law? No. Do laws deter people from doing bad things? Yes. It is illegal to drink and drive and people still do it; Does that mean it should be legal? No.

If the gun and pencil are the same as your point suggests then let me ask you this... Which would you rather your child be playing with? A gun? Or a pencil? A gun right? Why? Because it is more dangerous? You see things in if themselves can be more dangerous than others. A gun is more dangerous than a pencil. To argue otherwise seems illogical to me. Who are you more afraid of? A man with a pencil or a man with a gun? A man with a gun right? Because the gun is more dangerous than a pencil right? I'd like to see someone commit mass murder at a school, mall, or movie theater with a pencil. Shit if like to see someone kill a man with a pencil. I'm sorry but there's no way I'm gonna feel threatened by a man wielding a pencil attacking me. I can shove my hand into the pencil tip and break the lead without breaking skin then break the pencil to pieces and crush it into splinters with my shoe. Your argument is flawed man. You can't compare guns to pencils lol

Heavy machinery is dangerous. One has to be certified and trained to operate some construction equipment but anyone can get a gun. That just doesn't make any sense. Yes guns in and of themselves are not dangerous without the context of human use but in what world would guns exist without humans? It's like saying construction equipment isn't dangerous unless used by a human... In what world would that happen? A man with a teddy bear and a man with a gun... Which is more dangerous? The man with a gun. Deciding factor: gun. In your example the deciding factor was: human. But your context is in a world that would never exist: guns without humans. My context is more realistic: comparing a man armed with a gun to a man armed with a teddy bear. If we can cognitively and logically agree that cars are dangerous than we can agree guns are. Cars are not dangerous without operators but are still considered dangerous. If we agree that regulating car and construction equipment operation and ownership why can't we agree on regulating gun operation and ownership. A bomb or tank is not dangerous in and if themselves so should we let just anyone own and use them? No.

Also, if it's the person wielding the gun that's dangerous then that point you are making is a strong argument for gun control. If it's WHO is wielding the gun that makes it dangerous shouldn't we regulate WHO can legally have one? If the deciding factor in assessing danger is who has a gun then it makes sense to regulate who has one. A convicted violent felon or paranoid schizophrenic can go to a gun show and buy a gun right now with no questions asked. You're right, it is WHO is wielding the gun that makes it dangerous so we should try to prevent violent and mentally disturbed people from having them right?

Heavy machinery is dangerous. One has to be certified and trained to operate some construction equipment but anyone can get a gun. That just doesn't make any sense. Yes guns in and of themselves are not dangerous without the context of human use but in what world would guns exist without humans? It's like saying construction equipment isn't dangerous unless used by a human... In what world would that happen? A man with a teddy bear and a man with a gun... Which is more dangerous? The man with a gun. Deciding factor: gun. In your example the deciding factor was: human. But your context is in a world that would never exist: guns without humans. My context is more realistic: comparing a man armed with a gun to a man armed with a teddy bear. If we can cognitively and logically agree that cars are dangerous than we can agree guns are. Cars are not dangerous without operators but are still considered dangerous. If we agree that regulating car and construction equipment operation and ownership why can't we agree on regulating gun operation and ownership. A bomb or tank is not dangerous in and if themselves so should we let just anyone own and use them? No.

So should we take away regulation on all things that are dangerous? With your logic drunk driving should be legal. Same with speeding. Or for that matter owning a tank or a nuke. I mean if the government shouldn't step in and regulate dangerous things that should go for all dangerous things, right? Or just guns?

I could just as easily argue that car accident statistics are skewed by drunk drivers, does that change that they are dangerous and cause a lot of deaths? No.

No we should not ban cars nor should we ban guns but we should regulate them. To legally drive a car one must take a test or two and in some states you must have a permit first or be 18. You must also register your car. You must also insure your car so that if you accidentally cause damage and/or harm to someone while driving. So, BY LAW, you have to get licensed, registered, and insured to drive a car. Cars are made for transportation and accidents happen that result in damage, injury, and death and we do a lot to try to prevent that and mitigate losses for it. Guns are made for causing damage, injury, and death plus sometimes they cause that by accident yet we do nothing to prevent that or mitigate losses. My paranoid schizophrenic uncle can go to a gun show right now and buy a gun, no questions asked. A convicted violent felon can go to a gun show and buy a gun no questions asked as well. It just doesn't make any sense.

Heavy machinery is dangerous. One has to be certified and trained to operate some construction equipment but anyone can get a gun. That just doesn't make any sense. Yes guns in and of themselves are not dangerous without the context of human use but in what world would guns exist without humans? It's like saying construction equipment isn't dangerous unless used by a human... In what world would that happen? A man with a teddy bear and a man with a gun... Which is more dangerous? The man with a gun. Deciding factor: gun. In your example the deciding factor was: human. But your context is in a world that would never exist: guns without humans. My context is more realistic: comparing a man armed with a gun to a man armed with a teddy bear. If we can cognitively and logically agree that cars are dangerous than we can agree guns are. Cars are not dangerous without operators but are still considered dangerous. If we agree that regulating car and construction equipment operation and ownership why can't we agree on regulating gun operation and ownership. A bomb or tank is not dangerous in and if themselves so should we let just anyone own and use them? No.