Why are anti-gunners so afraid to admit they just want all guns banned and confiscated?

266,560 is a pretty low number.

There are 327 million of us in the United States.

No one I have told this story to has suggested the outcome would have been any different had I been armed. I don't think that even the nuttiest of gun nuts would have drawn their weapon in this circumstance.

266,560 [out of 327.2 million] is a pretty low number.

I'm sure that those victims would find comfort in your words.

The point I am making is that the risk of facing violence during a burglary is statistically very low.

Having an exaggerated fear over something that is unlikely to ever happen is irrational.

In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 people),[6][7] and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 people).[8] These deaths included 21,175 suicides,[8] 11,208 homicides,[9] 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".[8]

InfraBlue wrote:

That's wrong. There doesn't have to be a single feature that makes the weapon a danger to the public to justify outlawing it.

That is incorrect. The government is not allowed to restrict a fundamental right unless the restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

InfraBlue wrote:

The danger is that these weapons are specifically designed for assault.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that only the versions with a selective fire switch were designed for assault, merely having been designed for assault does not mean that a weapon is necessarily a danger to the public.

These weapons were designed for assault with the only difference from their military issue counterparts being selective fire, which makes them a danger to the public.

Quote:

One thing is that flash suppresors aid shooters, another thing trying to base that claim on police and witness reports. One doesn't need police and witness reports to verify that flash supprsors aid shooters.

It's one thing to say that flash suppressors aid murderers. It's another thing to say that a rifle should be banned because it has a flash suppressor.

The reason being that there is no instance on record to show that a flash suppressor made a murderer more successful. You're going to have to produce an instance in which a flash suppressor changed anything about a shooting or mass shooting. Perhaps if you could find some news report or law enforcement official claiming that a murderer's location was a mystery because of a flash suppressor. So, you go find an incident in which that was the case. Otherwise, your claim here can be chalked up to hysteria.

Quote:

So, there is no actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers, exactly, the cause is all about trick questions.

There's nothing tricky about my question. What you don't like about it is that it's straightforward and it calls your reasoning into question.

So let's go back and find out why you hold the contradictory position of condemning the drunk driver instead of the alcohol for the loss of life, but condemning the gun instead of the murderer for the loss of life.

And according to the video, he is quoted as saying, "If you want to have a gun in your home, I think you're pretty stupid." Which shows that he is too dimwitted to understand that what he is saying is: It's pretty stupid to decide to have the means to protect yourself and your family from a home invader.

Quote:

How is that dishonest?

You made the claim that the military does use semiautomatic rifles. Of course they don't. But having made the claim, you needed to extricate yourself from the position of having been caught making yet another unproven claim. So you decided that since one of the settings on a select-fire rifle is for semiautomatic fire, you could push the idea that that makes that rifle a semiautomatic rifles.

Quote:

It's not contradictory to say that it's not about the features even though the features make a rifel especially dangerous.

That statement itself is contradictory.

And to make matters worse, it contains your original contradictory claim that, though it's the features that make the rifle especially dangerous, I should focus on the rifle, and not the features that make it dangerous.

The guy already has a weapon drawn on you. You give him the money... without risking your lives.

Heh, having a semiautomatic option on a selective fire rifle does make it a semiautomatic rifle, among its other options. You ASSumed that I meant that these rifles are exclusively semiautomatic.

The point I am making is that the risk of facing violence during a burglary is statistically very low. Having an exaggerated fear over something that is unlikely to ever happen is irrational.