Sickening and depressing.

The primary disqualifier for handgun ownership should be the desire to own one.

IMP.

" We've got to get rid of the cars. Now."

To further the point that this is a flawed analogy: How many people die from car accidents without ever being in a car, versus how many die from being shot without ever owning a gun? How many of the people who have died from car accidents in the last year died as a willing participant in their own fate? You get in a car drunk, or with a drunk driver, your fate is in your own hands. You get shot by some stranger while at school, not so much.

If you want to compare statistics, look at the number of people who die in accidents caused 100% by other drivers in other cars. Even then, it's a flawed analogy.

"I'll just let Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton and the rest of those great
geniuses argue the case for my owning a gun. When you guys become as
smart as they, then I'll listen to you."

I assume then you also ignore all amendments to the Constitution? The "geniuses" you mention were smart enough to create a document that open for reinterpretation and alteration. They lived hundreds of years ago and did not have to deal with the situations that exist today. An appeal to authority as such is inherently flawed. The laws must serve the current populace or they are hindrance rather than a help. As such, when discussing this topic with any degree of reason, it is crucial to focus on modern relevance. Anything else is simply a dodge, and not worth consideration.

Jon wrote: I'll just let Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton and the rest of those great geniuses argue the case for my owning a gun. When you guys become as smart as they, then I'll listen to you.

And what evidence do you have that I'm not smarter than the aforementioned?

(hanging round this forum does not count incidentally)