Why wouldn't you include stabbings? Are you suggesting that murder is better if it's done by knife than by gun?

Of course you're going to get lower gun homicide rates by banning them. You'd get lower knife homicide rates by banning knifes (I think it's time to consider an assault-knife ban), but aren't you "fixing" the wrong problem? Shouldn't we be trying to stop murder?

Because when accusing gun control of being sinister in the U.S., using stabbing statistics creates a false equivalence with the U.K.

Nobody is promoting murder here so why would you even ask that?

So what is to be gained then by pointing out that gun crime is much higher in a nation where they are legal than in one where they are not? Unless you view gun ownership in and of itself as a bad thing, then it's a useless statistic. You're not reducing crime/murder by banning guns, you're just changing the weapon. That hardly seems like justification for violating somebody's rights (in the US, it is a Constitutionally guaranteed right).

If you're claiming guns are substituted 1:1 by other weapons when not available: you're wrong.

Guns make killing far easier than weapons like knives.

That it's not "sinister" (as you said) to want gun control when the gun homicide rate is 30x that of the U.K. Why are you trying to equate knives with guns all of a sudden?

I didn't use the word sinister, only you did previously that I can see.

I'm not equating guns and knives at all. My entire point is about what we are measuring, and what we are trying to prevent.

>I didn't use the word sinister, only you did previously that I can see.

>I find the whole pressure to 'ban guns' sinister in Trump's America...

That's not a quote of mine. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Edit: yes, you appear to be quoting olivermarks