Hell, even when you combine the two, they can’t kill anyone..unless someone uses them.
The same can be said for grenades, tomahawk missiles, nuclear weapons, battleships, torpedoes, rocket launchers. Guess we should all have easy access to these as well, right?
Because the stance from these all or nothing gun advocates is essentially… the tool isn’t the problem, people are the problem. Why “punish” people who obey the law because of a few that don’t.
Well, unless you people have the magic secret that has finally solved the issue of violence within the human species, especially towards one another, then it’s probably more sensible to focus on limiting the access to tools which increase the likelihood of violence, rather than making it easier for those who wish to use them maliciously to actually gain access.
Now, if you want to say our Second Amendment gives us right to own any “arms” we want, well then you have to believe our First Amendment should have no limitations as well. You would then have to support the right for anyone to scream “bomb” in an airport or on an airplane. After all, it’s freedom of speech, right? Clearly stated in our First Amendment.
Or maybe we just need to use common sense with some of these issues, rather than using arguments that make good bumper stickers.