> Out of many millions of people, 12 per day is a rounding error. You'd probably save more lives by launching a campaign telling kids to tie their shoes or lay off the soda, for real.

If I told you that I kidnapped 12 kids every single day and fed them into a woodchipper would that be acceptable to you because it's "just a rounding error" or because "You'd save more lives telling kids to tie their shoes than by stopping me"? Any number of children I threw into that woodchipper would be an unacceptable number of children and of course actions should be taken to stop or at the very least reduce those deaths. It's no different with gun deaths.

> Also, what gun grabbers don't understand (or choose to ignore) is that the people who are murdered by their peers with a gun could just as easily be murdered with a knife, or a brick.

Once again, the facts don't support your argument. We know that mass-stabbers don't kill as many people as mass-shooters. It's obvious why that is, you even said it yourself: Sharpened pencils and bricks are slow and far less effective at killing than guns. There's a reason why the militaries of the world arm their troops with guns and not just bricks and knives. People with bricks and sharpened pencils (which become very hard to hold on to while covered in blood by the way) are far easier to disarm safely. It is much much harder to kill with those everyday objects than with guns.

Obviously psychopaths will still find ways of killing people. Keeping the most deadly weapons out of their hands, or making it more difficult for them to get those weapons will reduce the number of deaths they can inflict on us which is something everyone should want.

>If I told you that I kidnapped 12 kids every single day and fed them into a woodchipper would that be acceptable to you

In all aspects of life, risk is involved. Would you ban cars because some children are hurt by them? Would you ban playground equipment on those grounds? Keep kids in cages because they might get kidnapped if they go to the corner store?

I can't put an exact number on it, but the potential victimhood of children and others does not invalidate our basic rights to self-governance and self-defense. Even if you could ascribe violence to guns solely (you can't really) there are many benefits to keeping the right to own guns. If safety comes at the cost of freedom, it's not worth it.

>We know that mass-stabbers don't kill as many people as mass-shooters.

The stats on such things are unreliable. Many gang shootings are registered as mass shootings.

>People with bricks and sharpened pencils (which become very hard to hold on to while covered in blood by the way) are far easier to disarm safely. It is much much harder to kill with those everyday objects than with guns.

When it comes to murder, all of these methods are effective. Guns may be the worst because they draw attention. On the other hand, would-be victims are much safer when armed.

>Obviously psychopaths will still find ways of killing people. Keeping the most deadly weapons out of their hands, or making it more difficult for them to get those weapons will reduce the number of deaths they can inflict on us which is something everyone should want.

Again, we have laws that require background checks for buying guns. I'm in favor of that, or at least not strongly opposed. But I do not in any way support banning guns for ordinary law-abiding citizens.