Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

Registration is the first step to disarmament. Look back no further than Janet Reno, thankfully no longer in her position, who famously said that the actual goal is disarmament of the population. A certain venomous Democrat presidential hopeful has also echoed this sentiment publicly, recently stating on the record that only police and military should own handguns. Why on Earth would anyone vote for someone who wants to take away freedoms enshrined in the Constitution?

Or when a relative dies because of a medical error, they might be rage at the particular doctor at fault, but there isn't a general outcry against hospitals or doctors. Everyone will still urge you to go to the ER at first signs of a serious problem.

But if a lunatic shoots a few people in a public place, then guns should just be banned altogether and there is a general outcry and the POTUS needs to visit the victims to console them.

Maybe someone can enlighten me why the risk of gun deaths is so much less acceptable (to a portion of the population) than the risk of death by automobile.

EDIT: Skiing is purely entertainment. About 41.5 people die a year in skiing accidents[1]. This, too, is considered an acceptable risk.

[1] http://www.nsaa.org/media/68045/NSAA-Facts-About-Skiing-Snow...

E.g. take this article: http://crimeresearch.org/2016/01/compared-to-europe-the-us-f... . They're mentioning:

- 303 deaths in the EU. This is simply an incorrect result, it counts victims from Norway, which is not an EU member.

- Only 4 mass shootings in the US in 2015. I don't live in the US and I can name at least 6 that made the headlines over here in Europe (e.g. the Harris County mass shooting isn't included).

- Hundreds of victims in France -- which is correct in terms of numbers, but most of them were victims of terrorist attacks, not mentally-deranged students who bought a rifle one sunny morning and started firing around. Most of those incidents barely match their own definition: "four or more people killed in a public place, and not in the course of committing another crime, and not involving struggles over sovereignty".

- A high number of victims for Norway, all of which are due to the Breivik incident. Limiting the debate to the Obama administration has the convenient consequence of keeping Norway's figures high. It would literally be twice as low if it were to include the Bush administration as well; I suspect the figure for the US wouldn't be twice as low in that case.

Besides, the conclusion is highly debatable. It tries to obtain that "US becoming safer compared to Europe" but:

- It does not include data from all European countries

- It "statistically" (i.e. incorrectly) conflates countries with widely differing legislation and enforcement status. This is very blatantly wrong: Serbia, second in that list, has a very strong gun culture and very liberal gun ownership laws compared to other European countries. My Serbian friends can carry guns that are only issued to members of the police and military where I live.

I don't know enough about how things are in the US to challenge that institution's opinions on the US, but their analysis of the European landscape is shaky at best, betrays a very obvious cluelesness about European laws and Europe in general, and frankly, I think the numbers are nicely tuned to give useful statistics.

The NRA created the gun lobby out of nothing at all.

EDIT: Found some links, it was 1977. here's one: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-seco...