he wouldn't need a rope or any other kind of weapon for that matter.

i beg to differ.

But more people are killed every year with hammers than with guns. Do we care less because they didn't all die at once?

It is what I have heard, though I could not point to a source. Anon below thinks it was Fox, and refers to rifles in particular. If so it doesn't really diminish the significance of what I am saying in the political field, as the only way to raise gun numbers would be to add deaths not caused by gun that they are talking about banning.

i wouldnt be surprised if fox said that, but it was probably just some random person that said that

but anyway, yes many things can be used as a weapon and be used to kill someone. but guns (especially high capacity assult riffles) can kill alot of people in a short amount of time.

its not that we need to ban all guns. but there is a high amount of gun related deaths in this country, and some regulations would be a good idea to try and help reduce the amount of people killed each year from gun violence.

its one thing to go hunting, or have a gun for protection, but an ordinary law abidding citizen doesnt need military grade assault weapons with large magazines

The question is why "in a short amount of time" is added. As I said, the statistic is valid, the most slight turned against it is that it refers to rifles not guns in general. The high capacity assault rifles are a sub-category of rifle. That means that hammers killed more than these high cap rifles and so my original challenge remains: why do we care that it wasn't spread out?

and to that, i say find the source material to back that statement up

Much to lazy, so I propose two things to you: it is validated by anon in comment 443, and does your argument hinge upon it being false - if not, you should be able to simply accept the fact and move on.

ok
first the anon didnt cite any sources.
and ill accept something as a fact if im given evidenence that something is true. like if you or the anon posted a link to that article i would have read it and accepted that i was wrong

So you will accept that Fox news said it, but not that it was written?

i dont know if fox new said it. (it sounds like something they would say)
but for all i know you (and the anon) could be making that up and said fox new said it inorder to give your side some validity

but anyway if you can show me an article that was publish or the broadcast that it was said on air. then ill admit that your statement about gun violence is valid

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

I want you to feel special. I really do. In fact I am giving you a thumb to make sure you do. I have now done more work for you than anyone else on this website. Going over a tab to google was freaking hard.

Jest aside, this should meet base requirements. It quotes FBI crime database.

ok while that article was highly opinionated at different points, but it did show what you were saying

i still believe that there should be regulations on military grade assault riffles, due to the potential they have for causing harm.

and you dont need to worry about thumbing me, i dont thumb people down for discussing things with me. but i will give you a thumb for doing that. using actual facts gives your argument more teeth and makes it much more effective. and it makes you much more respectable being able to back the things up you say, compared to just randomly saying things that may not be true.
so ill tip my hat to you

Yeah, like I said below it was simply the first result, the point was to validate the hammer claim.

I feel most people reaction to guns isn't logical but emotional (not saying that they don't have reasons but that reasons were not what led them to the initial stance that they have backed up). I was raised with guns, they don't scare me, and as such when the news is scared by guns I simply feel humored. That said if I was raised without them I would likely be on the other side.

The thumbing was part of the joke about making you feel special. I am on FJ to have fun, and as such do, even in these types of discussions. As such I routnely make jokes or snide remarks. Also that fun bit is also why I don't generally back up my fact, and simply accept any contrary fact given me. I don't wnat to look things up, takes time and effort. In this case i did because it seemed like it was actually important for you, but that is also why I asked about it being essential to your case - for I am betting even if I answered each of your concerns, you would still feel there was something wrong with accepting ARs in the hands of individuals.

i can accept someone owning a pistol, a shotgun, or even a semiautomatic rifle. but i dont think that it is wise to allow the process for getting one to be easy. and i dont think that a normal person needs a 30+ magazine either. And i believe comparing people who get murdered from blunt instruments to those that are killed by a piece of technology that has been engineered over many years to effiecently and effectively kill a large amount of people in a short amount of time, is kinda insulting and making light of the situation

and yes there was a bit of emotion to me for this subject. mainly because when the Newtown shootings happened, the information came out slow. and for awhile all i heard was that someone was shooting up a kindergarten classroom. my sister is a kidergarten teacher, so you can understand why i was scared alot of that day

Also, this was simply the first result. No clue if more "reliable" sources are listed elsewhere.

the website seems to lean alot to the right, but im not going to poke holes in it. you went out and found evidence supporting your statement

not sure if you are a troll,
extremely paranoid
or an idiot

this aint colonial times anymore. we dont have a tyranical government ruling over us anymore

yes we did. do i need to give a list of examples?

i think you may need to brush up on your US history