Originally Posted by JCL

That is a different example. Your question above was, "So if all Americans give up their weapons, no more (American) children will be hurt by guns?" We answered yes, that is true. In face, we hold that truth to be self-evident, to quote a famous document. You didn't agree. So now you are saying you don't agree because only some people give up their guns, ie not the criminals. You have changed the question, and that wasn't what we were discussing. Come on, noncom, keep up! Sorry, I saw somebody used that just above

But again, you are deflecting. Nobody said somebody was going to take your guns against the constitution. You made that part up. We are discussing gun controls. As per the constitution. As per the Supreme Court ruling. You keep using examples that are beyond the scope of gun control proposals on the table.

I have tried to answer your question. Now will you answer mine? Why does this always turn into examples of gun confiscation instead of a discussion of gun control? It seems that exageration and hyperbole is the only way to counter the seemingly logical hypothesis that fewer guns results in fewer gun deaths and injuries among children (and others, for that matter).