Guns may be designed to kill, but they aren't purchased (99.9% of the time) to kill. They're purchased to go shoot some targets, maybe do some competition shooting, shoot some clay pigeons. I know my analogy was flawed, but I was just trying to illustrate a point. Also, why is it irrelevant that you can use anything to commit murder? Let's say somebody wants to kill somebody else in cold blood. If that person has a gun, they're going to use it. If they don't have a gun, they'll use a knife. Or a bat, or anything else. So because out of the 3 different weapons I listed, one of them is a gun, you think it's ok for the government to take EVERYBODY's guns away? Why not take away everybody's knives or baseball bats too, since they *CAN* be used for murder. I know they aren't taking every gun away, but it's all matter of principal. Once they take Assault Rifles away, they're closer to being able to take all guns away. And as for the "Guns are designed to kill" argument goes, you actually CAN say the same thing about knives. Spears have sharp jagged rocks attached to the top, which is a very primitive form of a knife. So knives should be regulated too and everybody should have to receive a background check to purchase knives! Yeah, that'll show 'em!