> Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles I'm sure. Just like I expect cars to be more dangerous than guns, too. But you're drawing odd c

> Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles I'm sure. Just like I expect cars to be more dangerous than guns, too. But you're drawing odd conclusions. My point was that tools have a place. A car is a tool. A knife is a tool. A hunting rifle is a tool. A rifle with the capability of mowing down herds (or people) with a high rate of fire has little merit in my mind. I speak generally, because I don't explicitly mean automatic/semi/etc because that's a whole other debate. Hunting rifles don't need "mow down herds" capability. Likewise, if you can walk into a store and shoot 50 people with ease, I question if you really need that capability for hunting. How many people in a crowd do you think you can kill with bolt action hunting rifles? Likewise, how many people in a crowd do you think you can kill with a knife? I despise these arguments of "but I have sports with X guns!" or "but I use X gun to hunt!". You can fish with explosives but it's not needed nor is it legal in many places. I support rifles for hunting, but there are limitations on the types of rifles, rate of fire, real use cases and etc.