Your comparison has no basis in logic. It’s tempting, but it’s not valid.
I can understand why you don’t want to address it. No big deal.
When you can change a single word, used in the exact same context, and you refuse to even consider it...well...
No, I DID consider it. I refuted your comparison. I even supplied a more apt comparison.
You can’t defend your analogy, and you’re blaming me?
To recap, a pit bull can act on its own volition. Guns cannot. Explosives can, to an extent, act on their own volition too, though not through force of its own will, but by its chemical composition and improper maintenance.
By that standard, pit bulls share a more logical basis with improperly stored explosives or volatile chemcials than with guns of any sort.
I’ve considered it. I’ve addressed it. A man that owns a .45 and a pit bull poses more of a risk to the community with the pit bull than with the .45, all things being equal. The reason - the pit bull can work against its confinements and the gun can’t.