Summations Only

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.

The point that YOU seem to be missing is that gun-lovers DON'T know the risks well. In fact, they DENY the risks. What we call risks, they call benefits.

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

Then what the @#$% are you talking about? What's the point of having safer guns if it isn't where the guns are?

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.

The question is: Why would they buy a newer, safer gun to replace the ones they already have? But "improved gun safety" will NOT address anything about the guns already in the purses and nightstands.

Sorry, this is straying off course, but I feel it must be addressed. This is an incorrect conclusion based on the accident scene. There are a number of reason why the car driver can be "faultless".
From your linked stats ... Again ... lack of proper training is more to blame. Those who complete advance riding classes are MUCH less likely to be involved in an accident.Now ... I am an instructor at a national motorcycle school. From experience with hundreds of students over the past 18 years, and my own riding experiences, I can positively state that MANY of the accidents where a car has pulled out in front of a motorcycle, the car driver is NOT at fault.
When you look both ways at an intersection in a 45 MPH zone, you instantly gauge the distance of any approaching vehicle, not the speed. If a vehicle is approaching at twice the posted speed limit (as I've seen more bikes do than cars) it doesn't register, and you pull out into your lane. The resulting accident is NOT your fault, but the fault of the bike rider who was doing 90 in a 45 zone. Because the bike could slow down, but not enough, it doesn't leave the skid marks a car would, so the car driver gets blamed.

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.

True ... and a speed limit is not a suggestion. But for some reason, motorcycle operators, in general, seem to think they don't have to follow the same laws. I am not defending car drivers who make stupid mistakes, but I am blaming the rider who is "showing off" on his/her bike.
37 years of riding plus 18 years of dealing with LOTS of young riders ... I've seen enough to know what I am talking about.

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.

omphalism? How do you mean? Implanted memories? Creationist belief in the young Earth? How does that apply to this? Once again, you're only reading what you wish.
Motorcycle riders always blame others.But enough about that ... it was just another analogy. I'll continue my years of riding crash free ... you can see what you want to bicker about next.

And today in Responsible Gun Owner News, a Florida man checked to see if his gun had a chambered bullet by putting it to his head and pulling the trigger.He'd been drinking, but of course most Responsible Gun Owners are teetotal, so nothing like this will happen ever again.---Police are still looking for the man who shot up a black church in Charleston. Now, I know --- because conservatives keep telling me so --- that we need guns to protect our liberties. I just wish they'd stop confusing people at prayer with Zombie King George III.

quote:

---

Someone other than me...

---

But you can bet that the screams will come from the gun lobby

quote:

---

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.

---

I guess that it's simpler to ignore facts that eviscerate your argument, but it isn't honest.

quote:

---

And that's irrelevant because forgoing a night of socializing has risk of death of exactly zero

---

And that is obviously untrue. It is relevant because it shows that your comparison is highly misleading and dishonest.Your argument merely shows that people who go out for supper - and drive to do so - for the sole purpose of survival are making a mistake comparable to buying a gun for protection. To which the obvious reaction is "so what?" Because nobody does that. It would be a silly thing to do.

quote:

---

You're trying too hard to miss the point, which is that people often engage in risky behavioreven when the risks are well known.

---

That is a nice example of projection. The bare fact of the risks of gun ownership is not the point. The point that owning a gun for protection increases the risks it is meant to reduce is the point. And you know it - that is why you try to "simplify" going out for supper into a question of survival ignoring the expected benefits, the real reasons for going out to supper. So you do not have even the excuse of an honest failure to understand.