Jake,

>>I agree, there might be doubts about the exact numbers and definition, but no-one is going to convince me that it is below 1. So if a gun in the house is less likely to be used in justified homicide than otherwise, whats the point in having it in the first place? You're doing yourself and your family a huge disservice by having one.
>>
>>Walter,
>
>Of course by that logic we should ban automobiles because the odds of someone in your family dieing in a car crash are far higher than being shot. Heck, driving isn't even a right so it'd be much easier to ban. At a minimum we should ban children in cars, because distracted driving is causing more accidents every year and the number one distraction in a car is not a cellphone, but other people, especially children.

Oh, of course, that flawed logic of cars killing people as well. I can't believe that perceived intelligent people buy into that. Cars are very valuable for the society in many, many ways: They serve a genuine purpose. Avoiding people getting killed in car crashes by banning cars will throw your country back into the 19th century. That is not a viable option.

The widespread availability of gun has no convincing purpose. Its side effect is a tremendous amount of accidents and deaths.

If you can't see the difference, well then there is no discussion possible,






>Or perhaps we should ban prescription painkillers since ODing on them is the fastest rising cause of teen death the last couple years and is expected to accelerate. Better get out in front of this to "save the children".