Newton hit on the head by an apple. Kennedy, shot in the head with a rifle. Bullets and apples equivalent?

More people are killed by rotten tomatoes than are killed by atomic warheads. Why would you ban atomic warheads?

Exactly, it is one of the most idiotic arguments a person could make.

I suppose that is why it appeals to them so much.

Newton wasn't killed by the apple… it made him come to a realization.

An object's potential to cause harm isn't the same as the threat it causes, nor does it address how quickly the object can be weaponized. Further, to use your apple example, an apple (1) very rarely causes substantial injury or death, even when used as a weapon, (2) contains seeds that can grow new trees, which then positively contribute to the environment, and (3) provide food for humans/animals. A gun, on the other hand, (1) often causes substantial injury or death when used as a weapon, which can be achieved readily, (2) can be used for sport (target shooting) among a wide array of alternative sports, and (3) might be used to kill animals to eat. It's also primarily designed and classified as a weapon. An apple is not.

I appreciate your offer of luck in assessing your logic and providing an answer, but in truth it wasn't needed. If you think beyond stage one sometimes instead of towing a line given to you by someone else, you would understand how applying actual thought doesn't involve luck.

Damn, I never thought of it that way before! If you ban guns then you HAVE to ban apples too! Now, I finally understand the conservative position on this issue. Thanks for explaining it to me. I don't think I was ever going to guess any of that on my own.

Enforce laws that we already have, stop taking away more of our rights!

Just do their jobs!