[seoaeu]

> And the argument for removing rifles ignores that they’re rarely used in crimes — more people are killed by hammers or fists than rifles.

Your own link shows that two thirds of homicides are committed using guns. That’s your only citation and hardly a compelling one to back up your claim that the US has a far lower crime rate thanks to all the guns

[zmgsabst]

Yes — and you see how that link is in support of rifles in particular, which are used less often than fists or hammers?

You ignored what the text you quoted actually said.

[seoaeu]

No, I pointed out that the quoted text made an irrelevant distinction between different kinds of guns while the entire rest of the comment (and the ones it is replying to) are about guns in general

[zmgsabst]

> That’s your only citation and hardly a compelling one to back up your claim that the US has a far lower crime rate thanks to all the guns

We have your comment which dishonestly claims that link was related to the claim about crime rates — when it clearly wasn’t.

The distinction is meaningful because gun restrictions tend to target rifles, when they’re hardly used in crimes.

[seoaeu]

> dishonestly claims that link was related to the claim about crime rates — when it clearly wasn’t.

I’m sorry for assuming that the final sentence of the comment and only citation was related to the rest of it

[zmgsabst]

I accept your apology for making a bad assumption that ignored the actual text of my post and which assumed bad faith on my part, since that link supported the nearby text which described data from that report.

[seoaeu]

No, I assumed you were engaging in good faith when you mentioned rifles. Instead you were responding to strawman argument no one made about how banning rifles (but not pistols) wouldn’t work.

[Auracle]

Guns, not rifles. Most are committed using pistols.

[seoaeu]

Yes, but OP was claiming that banning pistols (and all other guns) wouldn’t help reduce crime, while citing the homicide data as proof