Cue the "guns should be banned" bandwagon again, even though not a single one of those pundits think cars should be banned because of drunk drivers, a far greater epidemic.
That is because cars have obvious and personal benefit to such persons. Even those who personally dislike the individual freedom the masses enjoy because of cars must be aware that a call to ban--or even severely restrict--cars would be met by so much populist resistance at this point as to be counter-productive. Far better at this stage to encourage "proper" living with Agenda 21 type efforts to increase the density of housing, while construction of new roads is opposed. Crowd folks into the cities.
What we have to understand is that many of the masses are not capable of doing a real cost-benefit analysis. Otherwise, such folks would not be spenindg money on cable TV while living without life insurance for the wage earners in the household.
Some who are capable, don't actually believe that guns in private hands bring benefits. Notice the ever and on-going efforts by the antis to persuade people that a gun in the home is "21 times more likely to kill a family member than a home invader...." and other such nonsense. These efforts are aimed directly at undermining the benefit side of the equation.
And for some, what we view as benefits of widespread private gun ownership--including reduced reliance on government to maintain order in times of crisis, a check on government power, etc--are viewed very deliberately as horrible costs.
If your goal in life is to impose unwanted control on the masses, guns in the hands of those masses are very undesirable.
We speak and write often of the "sheeple". Let us not forget those who know full well what they are doing, but simply want something very different than we do.
Charles