>>And by the way a car has some actual uses for society and duh it's wasn't made with the sole purpose of killing so trying to link the two is also stupid.
>
>That's the way I look at it. As I pointed out to Jake last week you can look at risk-benefit ratio rather than fixating on just the risk. Assuming risk for low or no benefit is stupid.
>
>There are a few occupations such farmers and hunters where a case can be made that the benefit-to-risk ratio of owning firearms is reasonable. Not so for most of the US population.

With you totally on first paragraph. Probably benefit-to-risk is different from cultures long disarmed mostly. But I fully follow Jakes and others logic that it is a bad idea to heap even more laws and regulations upon non-criminal population just because it is easy to do - they should enforce existing legislation, make more spot checks on hidden carry and throw the book at criminals using weapons in crime.