>>Why not just say that you hate guns and be done with it?
>
>Just lets not play stupid here. In previous conversations you already admitted that you love guns

I admittedly argue for liberty and choice of individuals to choose to arm themselves. To be precise, I love liberty.

>depite the overwheling evidence that guns don't make society safer.

First there is no "overwhelming" evidence either way. That's part of my point. Like many politically charged discussions, for each argument one side makes there is a counter. That you choose to ignore that which disagrees with your obvious hatred of guns belies your position. That you hide behind your set of "facts" and "stats" while ignoring those counter to your opinion reveals your bias. Thus I say just be honest about it.

>FBI stats confirmed that a gun in the house is 40 times more likely to hurt a friend rather than a Foe. What other arguments do you need ?
>
>Walter

IF I accept that stat at face value (which is very difficult since it was first postulated back in the 80s and many flaws have since been exposed) why does that mean we should ban guns? What is the percentage chance of a gun in the house being used to hurt a foe? If it's a negligible fraction of a percent (btw, it is), it hardly seems relevant.

This is precisely why I've brought up swimming pools and automobiles in the past. Automobiles are FAR and away more dangerous to human life than guns. Your counter is to say that cars have a valuable role in society thus their ban is not worth it despite the vastly higher numbers. Right there you've injected your opinion into the discussion and rather than rely on hard evidence you've softened the argument to fit your bias.

With swimming pools the point is even clearer. Pools are clearly a discretionary item and cannot be argued as necessary in the same vein as cars. So, since owning a pool is MUCH more likely to result in an accidental death than not, according to your argument, we should ban pools. After all, safety is paramount.