I understand what you're saying, and again, I appreciate your input. First, firearms aren't made only for killing like Bruce said. There are gazillions of target shooters out there that safely enjoy the sport. Obviously a lot of firearms are designed to kill people such as the civilian versions of military arms, and that is a good thing since many people own them for self defense. I certainly wouldn't want to own and/or carry a rifle or sidearm that was ineffective against people wanting to cause me or my family harm, would you? I want the most effective firearm available for that purpose. One type of firearm I love dearly is flintlocks. I've built several and enjoy hunting and competition shooting with them, and I also appreciate just having them and admiring them since they're a part of our American (and European) history. But as much as I love them I certainly wouldn't want one for self defense when the bad guys have semi-automatic firearms.
Second, you're right that there's a difference between a vehicle and a firearm, sort of. They're similar though because they both require people to use them responsibly or injury or death may result. Some people even use vehicles as weapons as you know. Take a look at the events that occurred in Israel, the Middle East, and the U.S. - plenty of examples where they are used to hurt people directly or indirectly as in the case of bombs, smuggling contraband, etc. The main difference is that we do not have a constitutional right to own and operate a vehicle but we do to keep and bear arms. My main point of that example wasn't to say they're equal though, but to point out that I have no right to decide for other's what they "need" or what is in their best interest. I'd like others to extend me that same courtesy. A lot of people say we shouldn't own chickens because we don't need them, and they are right - I don't need my chickens to survive, yet anyway. But if I feel I do need them then that is my business as long as I'm not breaking the rules or impinging on another person's right.
Last, I do not surely agree that "something" must be done. There's never any harm in reviewing what happened in detail to try to figure out if procedures or steps can be taken to minimize disasters, but restrictive steps should only be implemented if they do not limit others freedom. I take my freedom, and the freedom of people in my country very, very seriously. There's nothing worse than a life in bondage and/or despair - just look around at others in the world. We have a gazillion laws on the books for everything from selling eggs to firearms already, and like was pointed out earlier, the places with the most restrictions have the highest crime because criminals don't follow laws. There will always be people who abuse their freedoms resulting in injury to others in one form or another, but in my opinion restricting the freedoms of many because of a few is way too high a price to pay for the promise of security.
Lsky - I certainly don't have all the answers and I'm not trying to argue just for arguments sake or anything. There aren't a lot of things I'm willing to invest a lot of time in since it's easier to keep my opinions to myself most of the time, but some things are just too important for me to not stand up for. Our rights and freedoms as Americans, and all people in the general sense are one of those topics. There are other unrelated subjects too like chickens obviously, gardening/farming, education, etc. that I feel strongly about so it's not just firearms. Of course things like what my wife wants to buy at the store, while important I've learn to keep those opinions to myself. And I really do appreciate hearing from you and I hope we both take something away from it. Even if we disagree on firearms there are probably a good many things we're both interested in that we see eye to eye on, like chickens for example. So I do appreciate hearing from you.
