Not surprised to see you are taking this position.
And trotting out this old rationalisation straight from the NRA handbook. You must recognise that they are not accurate analogies?
How many children were killed by a homicidal driver intentionally ploughing his car through a playground?
People need to use a car every day to get from A to B. Particularly in a huge, widely dispersed country like the USA that has a very sparse public transport system. Obviously accidents happen, that's an unavoidable fact of life, but governments are constantly introducing legislation in an attempt to reduce those deaths (e.g. seat belts, banning mobile phone use while driving, drink drive limits, speed limits).
Guns are lethal offensive weapons. Describing them as defensive weapons is just gun lobby marketing speak. Inflicting death and injury are their primary purpose. There is not much legislation that can be introduced to make them safer, other than to restrict access to them. How many people need to use an automatic rifle, or even a handgun, everyday? How many deaths caused by guns would be described as accidental as opposed to intentional?
I'm not taking any position. Just mentioning context amongst all the pearl-clutching on here.
I don't like guns, don't want one, never had one, don't agree with them. I wouldn't have one on principle.
Been to America something like 75+ times and have a business there too, so I know the country better than most people. Only ever seen someone who wasn't in the police, who carried a gun, and that was in Texas.
Fact remains that more people die on the roads than get shot dead. It can be explained reasonably rationally, of course. But take away the mass shootings and the gang shootings and the numbers drop considerably. Take actual, practical steps to deal with the illegal drugs trade and you'd see the numbers of people getting shot dead drop right down.
