Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk
If you actually believed this drivel, you'd call for strict restrictions on alcohol sales, if not outright bans on booze. After all, when that many are killed each year by drunken drivers, we should all be frightened/threatened/outraged that something isn't being done to put a stop to it.
Ah, yes, the facile comparison of guns to alcohol and drunk driving.
Drunk driving fatalities involve two "weapons" being "misused", alcohol and automobiles. First, comparing guns to alcohol, guns are always a threat. A loaded gun is always deadly, always poses a risk. Alcohol, on the other hand, is not dangerous in moderation, and by itself is not inherently dangerous to anyone other than the user (assuming said user does not practice moderation). Second, comparing guns to automobiles, guns don't have necessary utility in society to nearly the extent automobiles do. Yes, I suppose a very small percentage of people need guns to hunt for their food. And yes, hunting is necessary to reduce the numbers of certain wild animals. But the "control" of guns wouldn't harm the ability for guns to provide this limited utility, whereas I'm not sure how you'd "control" automobiles any more than they are controlled now. Or how you'd attempt to even begin to compare the utility of automobiles, which are a huge and necessary part of the economy on many levels, to that of guns.
Nobody is suggesting outlawing or eliminating guns. Your overreaction to attempts to reasonably place limits on them is silly.