Why ban the guns that kill the least amount of people, and ignore the ones that kill the most?

[metroins]

8. Low Hanging Fruit

These gun debates are ridiculous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6]

33,000 gun deaths, 2/3rds are suicide, 1/3rd are homicide. Congress decides to ignore our suicide epidemic and go after the homicide...OK that's fine.

According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,897 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,404 of those attributed to handguns.[8]

70% of firearm-homicides are by handguns...Congress decides to ignore that as well....

I'm not going to finish this post because it would take too much time, but handguns and suicides just aren't sexy. If you go after suicide, you have to talk about mental health and that's scary, if you go after handguns then you have to discuss gang violence or domestic violence and those are huge problems to fix.

So Congress decides to focus on the less than 1% of gun deaths because it's low hanging fruit and easy to tackle.

Terrorists are bad, "assault weapons" are scary, Americans are dumb.