got to be the games, I just can't think of firearms in terms of hurting people.
Quantity wise I think you are mistaken. The number of military firearms must outnumber the ones for civilian use by a large amount.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Considering it philosophically, for more years than not, our (US & Canada) military arms have been thought of as for the purpose of killing people (UN moves excepted)...but rather, for the purpose of deterring others from killing us. Only when others start trying to kill us, do they usually incur meeting with our arms in a hostile way. This especially goes with our "big guns"..the nukes.
Most powerful, non-expansionist nations possess the arms they do, primarily for their deterrent value. That is exactly why a single, non-expansionist super-power is a good thing. If the liberal/socialists get their way and there is no benign super-power...we can look forward to continuing conflicts between world-wide mix of passive and aggressive states of roughly equal power.
Historically, we can cite.. 1) "Pax Romana" and..2) our "cold war" years... The first one, dominance by a super power, and the second a standoff between 2 super powers, followed by a short period of leadership by one super power.
If instead the world, following the liberal/socialist lead, becomes a mix of battling minor powers...with today's nuclear, chemical & bio weapons..things can become toxic for all of us very quickly.