Agree to disagree. Neither of us will ever change our views. And of course they don't wave their agenda around, it'd be like somebody who is for gay marriage continuing to berate the subject even after it was made legal. If the government already backs your agenda, you don't have to "wave it around", as it is already backed by the government as well as taxpayers.
More regulation doesn't mean you wouldn't be allowed to own a gun. As somebody who volunteered as an officer, I'm sure you would have no problem obtaining one even with more restrictions in place. But there's a difference between having a firearm for legitimate reasons, and building a personal arsenal out of paranoia. One is unnecessary, and people with paranoid tendencies like that can make dangerous decisions.
And legally? What does that even mean haha. The ATF only gets around to inspecting vendors about once every 17 years, they aren't allowed to request lists of inventory from dealers regularly, and the list goes on. They have so many restrictions due to pro gun laws, they can't even properly trace illegal firearms. They can't even set into effect a law that prohibits the sale of firearms to those under the influence of alcohol. So what restrictions do we really have at this point?
Bringing up car wrecks is pretty irrelevant. People need cars for transportation. Majority of the population would do just fine without firearms.
And I'm not happy about the trend of giant cars either. I feel the need to own one just because if I were hit by one, I would just die, no questions asked. I live in the mountains and people use the excuse of they need a Hummer for safety. Which is not true. An all terrain vehicle like a Jeep would do just as well in terms of control, and it would be safer for everybody else on the road.
I honestly don't know why you even brought up car wrecks. That'd be like comparing recreational drug overdoses to deaths in surgery. One is necessary, one is not.
I would continue this, but your rude opening makes me unable to respect your opinion, so I don't see a point in trying to have a respectful conversation with somebody who shows none. I discuss this all the time with my pro gun friends, but see, we have this thing called mutual respect for other humans and the experiences that have shaped their views. Maybe try getting some control over your emotions Toodles.
Now why do I bring up vehicles? Well, unlike what you have said, we don't "need" them. It is without argument that aside from the massive number of deaths and other property loss they cause, they are destroying our world. We have vehicles and WANT vehicles because they make life easier.
Even with that said, the majority of deaths caused by vehicles aren't because they are being used properly, but because they are used improperly. Mainly with the consumption of alcohol or other inebriates. Why does this matter? Because it completely removes the entire "need vs want" aspect. It also reinforces the truth that it is the person and not the thing that is to blame.
Now I would love to address your "arsenal" statement. If you were actually involved with firearms you would know that those who collect them, tend to have only one or two that are their self defense weapons of choice. Typically a handgun for personal carry and a long gun for home defense. The rest are purchased as part of the sport! Yup, the sport! Like it or not shooting is a real sport.
Now, just like any other sport you need equipment! Does that golfer need 3 sets of clubs? Does that bowler need 4 bowling balls? Does that fisherman really need 15 rods and 20 reels? Maybe! It isn't up for you to decide or I, but the participant in that sport.
Guns are not created equally, you have certain guns for certain aspects of the sport. Just like with any sport.