The other day I discovered a book which discusses the use of motorized vehicles as weapons at length: https://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/08...

As someone who does a lot of cycling, I'm used to road rage directed at me in the form of punishment passes mostly.

>The difference is that guns are inherently dangerous: their main purpose is to cause destruction and harm

The difference being how you framed that to begin with: Many people have and continue to use guns to provide food and protection.

If we ban guns because a small group of people misuse them, I want:

1) Automobiles banned: http://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/088...

2) Knives banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre & http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attac...

2.1) Sharp objects in general banned: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breakingnews/offbeat/man-k...

The argument is always "guns make it easier to kill others". This is almost always touted by people who've never shot a gun or have never aimed a gun. Worse, they target the wrong kind of guns [0]. Namely, rifles and shotguns and "scary looking guns" that are used less often than knives are used for murder.

The only compelling argument one can make is that "given the choice between a blunt object, a knife, or a gun, most murderers pick guns". There is little to no evidence that removing guns removes murderers. The reasoning that they would simply pick a different weapon seems to be tossed aside and ignored.

I don't and never will own a gun. Before anyone tries to justify my "owning a gun" as their argument for why I'm biased by supporting gun rights.

[0] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...