I wrote:

their primary uses are all related to death, injury, or violence (though not necessarily to humans); the vast majority of guns sold are sold for reasons related to this.

You responded:

The vast majority of these are never used for death, injury and violence. People often have guns as collectables, for hunting or for use in a shooting range which are all completely justifiable uses.

Nice way you have there of completely deflecting everything by pretending it means something else. You should've worked for the George W Bush administration.

Where did I say anything about "justifiable" or "unjustifiable" uses? How does that even reflect on the point I was making? Do you even have a clue what that point was?

You seem to understand, later in your comment, that hunting is violence, yet you present hunting as a counterpoint to my bringing up violence. What you don't seem to understand at all is that "reasons related to this" is not identical to simply "this".

Yes, you think violence to animals doesn't count. That's not the point. This isn't about your opinion, this is about whether it's possible for reasonable people to disagree with the commenter above without committing a logical fallacy. Those people may simply not agree with you.

You would argue about self defense, but that again is not the point. That's just another example of guns being sold for "reasons related to" their purpose of being used for violence. You want to argue that it's "good" violence. Fine, argue that - argue it with someone who's taking the opposing position. But for you to think that because you hold that opinion means that people who don't think guns and knives make a good parallel are logically inconsistent, just shows the point when whoosh over your head in your desire to defend guns against every perceived slight.

Sadly, it looks like the majority of people participating in these comments are the sort who can only see "guns good!" and "guns bad!" and react with the jerk of a thoughtless knee.