WHAT argument about guns should be "won"?

Posit: The comparison between death/injury by automobiles v. firearms is facetious and misleading.

Tripping through the Way-Back Machine, I found this April 2018 article by Nicholas Kristof, one of my favorite Liberal (Anti-Gun) writers.

Opinion | How to Win an Argument About Guns - The New York Times:

You liberals are in a panic over guns, but look at the numbers. Any one gun is less likely to kill a person than any one vehicle. But we’re not traumatized by cars, and we don’t try to ban them. It’s true that any particular car is more likely to be involved in a fatality than any particular gun. But cars are actually a perfect example of the public health approach that we should apply to guns. We don’t ban cars, but we do work hard to take a dangerous product and regulate it to limit the damage.

(Emphasis Added:  Read the whole article to put this paragraph in the perspective of its author.)

The comparison suggests that since we've found ways to make cars less dangerous, we should be able to make guns less dangerous, too.

Well, that's just silly.
Although Nicky (who perhaps doesn't keep or carry firearms) conflates the two mechanical devices, he elides over the salient point:   Guns are dangerous because that is their purpose.

(Perhaps he proposes to "limit the damage" by making them more difficult to ... uh ... take the safety off?  Okay, that's silly, too.  I was just trying to imagine what measures Nicky was thinking of which would still keep them easily available in a self-defense situation.  I am confounded.     You think maybe Nicky didn't think it through? )

True, cars are intended for transportation.  But guns are designed to bore holes through their targets. 

Usually, that target is a piece of paper or some other inanimate object.  A tin can?   Often, a gun is used to kill an animal ... such as Bambi or The Easter Bunny. 

And once in a while a gun is used to dissuade a would-be felon from rape, mayhem, or murder.   In those cases, you don't want to piss on them, you want to step on them HARD!

Personally, I've never deliberately aimed a rifle or a pistol at a living human being; in Viet Nam, I preferred the M18 Claymore Mine or the M79 Granade Launcher ... More Bang For The Buck!
(My favorite weapon was the PRC-25 Radio, with which I could call in anything from mortar or artillery fire to an air strike.   Sorry, I digress.)

For personal/home defense, I have always preferred a 1911-style pistol in .45 ACP caliber.   Or 10mm. Or any caliber where the first digit was at least a "4".

(more overleaf)



Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrestis famously quoted as saying "... get there firstest with the mostest" .. or words to that effect.  Whether the story is true or not, the axiom has stood the test of time in any armed conflict.  In personal defense, the first shot that HITS is the one that counts.

Any Liberal argument which posits that guns can be made "less dangerous" naively suggests that this would be a societal benefit; which argument I reject out of hand.  You never "need" a gun until you really really need it.  They are defensive weapons which can be used for offense; either in war or in peace, you want a lethal weapon to intimidate a would-be assailant or, in the final analysis, to cause him such serious damage that he is no longer a threat to you or yours.

And make no mistake; if someone breaks into an occupied dwelling, you must assume that his intentions are not tempered by good judgement nor a wish to sell girl-scout cookies.   Intended violence must be met immediately by overwhelming force ... and I never won a fist-fight in my life even when I knew that my assailant didn't have a weapon.

And yet this naive contributor suggests that a home-owner should defend himself by a weapon which has been emasculated to "minimize the damage" ????

When I go to the range, I practice with a handgun which has as much firepower as I can handle, which suggests a caliber over 40 and a magazine capacity of as many as a "big stack" magazine can hold.  Because I cannot assume that a single Home Invader is my attacker; I must assume there are multiple attackers and I'm going to be so frightened that my practice on the range doesn't guarantee first-shot hits which kill or disable all of them.

So this is my "argument about guns which should be won":

I survive.  
That's all that matters.