It seems a bit dubious to ban something that has legitimate uses and isn't even on the "leaderboard" in the murder category.

If you believe handguns should be banned, it is at least somewhat logically consistent of a position. But if you ban something that is a fringe edge-case in the statistics, we know a priori it will be minimally effective at best, and at worst those murders will be performed by other, more convenient means.

You can't feel the arguments from the gun-control crowd are any less boring than your arguments, right? It's been the same shit for ages.

The whole debate is boring, crazy that we keep delving into it.

Considering that even some firearm maximalists don't appear to understand the history of the weapon they're defending or that of the FAWB, I dispute how "boring" my argument is.

By the same argument police departments don't respond in the two minutes it takes for a violent incident to take place, even more so the further outside a city center you are. So even though fires don't happen often, you still keep a fire extinguisher, the same argument is used for home defense.

> Do you think people advocating gun control haven't considered these numbers?

I think the overwhelming majority of them are ignorant of them, yes. Do you have data that shows otherwise? If so, perhaps you should present it.

> but just that their arguments are so boring.

Calling a fact "boring" is not a refutation of it.