Yes, I think there's a flaw in your logic, unless you consider the violence the actual explosion of the gunpowder or release of pressure (as is the case with air guns) that propels the projectile the gun fires. If one does not accept that form/context of "violence," all uses of guns are not necessarily violent. Not all uses of guns violent because target shooting, however violent one considers it to be, is hard to classify as violent. With target shooting, I dare say that sport is no more materially violent than is target shooting with a bow or throwing a stone. There's also the greyish area of hunting, which is violent, for a hunted animal anyway, but it's a form of violence we accept as okay, for the most part. However violent hunting is, it's lawful too, and that's not likely to change, whether it be gun hunting or other means. So as line of opposition based on "violence by humans," I don't see a strong argument there. I do think, however, that one can refine the assertion/conclusion so that there is a sound/cogent argument that says "promoting certain kinds of gun use is necessarily a tacit promotion of violence." Indeed, I think that argument may be makeable for any gun use that results in a dead/injured creature. The thing is that it's a purely moral argument, which means that even being sound/cogent, it can be rejected out of hand on the basis of the law sanctioning hunting, unless that line is proscribed/pre-empted from the get-go. If the legal angle isn't snuffed at the outset, having to make the moral argument when facing the pragmatic context of the law will push one into the philosophical quagmire natural law versus human law, or, equally messy, when and whether one must/should obey or disobey the law which leads, in turn, to a discussion about anarchy, ethics underlying each progression in the discussion/debate. I'm sure you can see that that line has no end, no matter how sound be the "opening salvo" of "promoting certain types of gun use = promoting violence," thus leaving one in the position of accepting a "draw" or a contested win. As you saw from my "registration argument" thread, what I will and won't discuss (open the door to) here is driven in part by strategy. As goes the "gun debate," there are certain strategic positions that one can take that accepts the current legal constraints and rights attendant to the 2nd Amendment and the SCOTUS' interpretations of law pertaining to it. Those positions rely on and/or acknowledge the following: The SCOTUS has deemed that gun registration does not limit the right to bear arms. We know this to be so because of the registration requirement for machine guns which has been in place since the mid-1980s. Holding gun owners accountable for "reasonably" maintaining their guns doesn't limit the right to bear arms, but it will ensure that people won't want to be held accountable for the unlawful use of guns the don't own. Increasing the certainty that one will do time for irresponsibly maintaining one's firearms will reduce the incidence of "straw purchases," kids and other unauthorized "friends" of lawful gun owners obtaining possession of lawful gun owners' firearms, successful gun thefts from careless lawful owners, falsely reported losses, etc. Lawful and sane owners who "flip out" are going to exist and we may have ways of identifying them before they unlawfully use their gun(s) or we may not. (I haven't conjured any ideas for just how to deal with this aspect of unlawful gun use.) The majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners/users and the proposals I've submitted aren't going to change that or be something about which they need worry because while they probably haven't registered their guns, they're probably responsibly maintaining them. If they're doing that and keep doing it, they really haven't anything to be concerned about. The real problem as goes gun-related violence is guns ease of use, portability and effectiveness at killing. Those traits militate for there being (1) a high degree of accountability to which owners and would-be owners must be held and (2) a lot of circumspection given to determining what individuals have shown they don't deserve to be trusted as being responsible and lawful actual owners of guns. I'm not of a mind that guns should be prohibited property. I am of the mind that certain types of guns don't belong in the public sphere -- automatic and semi-automatic guns -- but I know that ownership of them can't be outright prohibited, but it can be tracked as is ownership of machine guns. (And let's face facts. None of the 400+ machine gun owners have been "flipping out" and shooting people or letting others get hold of machine guns and shooting people.) It's not that those types of guns themselves are so bad, but that unfit individuals who obtain possession of them can inflict vastly more amounts of death and injury than they can with manual firearms. Even as I'd just as soon semi-automatic and automatic guns not be in the public sphere, I don't particularly want to remove any class of gun from circulation, but I do want people to exercise far more circumspection over their guns and gun use than they do currently; thus I proposed the registration + accountability ideas I have, but not the production restrictions in place for machine guns.