While I understand some of the argument that other dangerous weapons would remain if guns were banned, what do those sporting this argument use to make up the difference in the statistics between homicides in countries with gun bans and without.<quoted text>
speaking of 8 ball
that pool cue is a weapon used thousands of years to kill humans.
We've seen an overall reduction in shooting deaths since the gun ban, coupled with the drop in all crime. Shouldn't these gun deaths have been subsumed into a rise in murders by other implements, for this argument to hold?
Or is it an argument only intended to be used in contexts where nobody participating in the conversation knows anything of other countries, their approaches through modern history and the results?