Summations Only

You're down-right certifiable.Let the record show that my position on this issue has no relationship to this nonsense.

Someone other than me... For simplicity's sake. But forgoing all the benefits from going out to supper is the cost of not going out, and none of those things has a risk above zero of killing you. It's still riskier going out to supper. And that's irrelevant because forgoing a night of socializing has risk of death of exactly zero. You're trying too hard to miss the point, which is that people often engage in risky behavioreven when the risks are well known.

I don't think my proposal for safer guns has anything to do with guns 'on the streets'.

And they don't need to; they're irrelevant.

The mother who buys a gun and sticks it in her purse.The father who stores a gun in his nightstand. I am talking about where the guns are. In fact, I'm talking specifically about the guns involved in accidental shootings that improved gun safety would address.

They probably wouldn't.But those considering buying a new gun might pick the safer one, especially if the safer one is marketed as the gun to have for family protection. Probably not.I still think improved gun safety is worthwhile.

If you haven't stopped long enough to gauge the speed of cross traffic then you haven't stopped long enough.Stopping at the stop sign is not meant to be a token gesture.

Perhaps your omphalism serves you well in your personal life, but it won't get you far on this forum.You can't wave away evidence counter to your position with anecdotes and excuses for why the evidence says something you wish it didn't. Since what you're talking about is wrong, perhaps you actually haven't seen enough.

Even if they go out for other purposes like socializing they are making that mistake because not socializing isn't going to kill them.Going out to supper presents a risk of death greater than zero; not going out to supper (forgoing everything that goes with that, including the food) presents a risk of death not greater than zero. And some of those people who buy guns involved in accidental shooting buy those guns for more reasons than just protection.If there have been any artificial limitations in the analogies, it's because they were introduced in the original argument about buying guns for protection. If you want to address the other probabilities in, then you'll have to look at all the other benefits people give up by not buying a gun, like the feeling of safety, the love of something shiny, etc.which they give up with 100% certainty if they do not buy a gun.But this makes everything a total fucking mess; and since policies usually aren't directed at nonsense like improving satisfaction from owning shiny things or socializing but instead at meaningful stuff like keeping people safe, it just makes sense to ignore these other 'benefits' as everyone else, besides you, has been doing.

And those who go out to supper on Saturday night for the reason of nourishing themselves are doing the wrong thing as well. I added an analogy equally restrictive. That's the idea of an analogy: to be somewhat equal. Huh?What government policies?

Who buys a gun just for protection?My guess is that folks who buy and own guns hope that they never find themselves in a situation where they have to use them to protect themselves. I did explain it; when I used the word 'policies' and not 'government policies'.

We also tell children not to talk to strangers.But if adults followed that rule, we'd never be able to get on with our lives.And that's because adults aren't children and shouldn't be expected to behave as though they are.

I don't think the gun-lovers are the ones leaving loaded pistols in their purses.Those people are generally not the gun-lovers; they're just people who own guns.They are the ones who will be persuaded to buy safer guns because they actually want to be safer and not simply own a gun.

Yet after over three thousand posts, in this thread alone, no one has been able to support such nonsense or even explain what it means.Oddly, from my own quick count, I see that most of the folks in this thread in support of gun-ownership rights don't themselves own gunsthey aren't the kids in a candy store drooling over firearms you like to pretend they are.You're spouting ad hominem nonsense to avoid addressing the real issue.

What safe ones?Pull the trigger and today's guns will fire, whether they're pointed at a toddler and regardless of who's pulling the trigger.