>>>>>...except that having a gun in your house makes your family LESS safe that not having one.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not certain what you are using to justify that belief but if it's the study I'm thinking of you better look closer.
>>>>
>>>>Even if I was to take that claim seriously, we could apply the same faulty logic to other items :
>>>>
>>>>Having children in cars makes them and you less safe.
>>>>Having stairs and tall furniture in your house makes your family LESS safe then not having them.
>>>>Having cleaning products in your house makes your family LESS safe then not having them.
>>>>Having bathtubs in your house makes your family LESS safe then not having them.
>>>>Having fireplaces, ovens and gas furnaces in your house makes your family LESS safe then not having them.
>>>>
>>>>Each of these are more common causes of accidental death for children than firearms.
>>>>
>>>>Now, those blanket statements take no individual family dynamics into account they are simply broad brushstrokes to prove a false premise. While collectively people with pools will have more children drown in them then people without, that doesn't mean no pools should ever be built. It's called managing risk. A gun is no different, except that it's less likely to cause an accidental death.
>>>
>>>You're halfway there. It's not just about risk, look at the ratio of benefit to risk.
>>
>>In the 100+ years my family has lived on our property there has never, EVER, been a single firearm accident. Not one. My grandparents used to host a party for the opening day of dove season and every year over 50 hunters would attend. This went on for over a decade. Not one firearm accident. Every one of my relatives and a number of my friends are hunters. Not one firearm accident. We're farmers and ranchers and we've had any number of accidents from being thrown off horses to run over by cattle to auto/motorcycle accidents and minor injuries related to use and repair of heavy machinery. Yet, we've also never had a limb or even a digit lost or serered. There have been falls, scrapes, broken bones, etc...I even chipped a number of teeth simply diving into our pool, yet not one single solitary firearm accident. I should mention our pool has a diving board which is WAY more likely to cause an accidental injury than a firearm (eeeeeeek).
>>
>>Managing risk requires education and respect. It's no different that putting a child on a 500 pound animal, watching them climb a tree or letting them near a body of water. Except, once again, those are all more likely to cause an accident.
>>
>>Hunting is an enjoyable pastime that we've enjoyed for generations. It's a part of our life. Being married to a gourmet chef and having acquired a taste for good wine and food pairing, has elevated wild game to a new level beyond anything I experienced as a child. Yes, the benefit is well worth the negligible risk.
>>
>>Update : Speaking of wine, It's time to go enjoy wine country. Have a great weekend all!
>
>In terms of modern American society, you are an edge case. There are also areas of my country where having firearms is useful, even advisable.
>
>However, you and I are both talking about hunting firearms used for their intended purpose. Those have a reasonably defensible benefit-risk ratio. Now let's talk about other types of firearms - handguns, military etc. What are the benefits of owning those?

Between Nick requiring people to prove their sanity before buying a legal inanimate object and you asking me to justify the benefits of a legal inanimate object it's been a banner week for liberty on the Thread.

I can hunt with a pistol or semi-auto rifle and I can defend myself with a rifle or shotgun. There is no distinction between hunting and military arms in the Constitution and I find no reason to accept the premise.

With that, I really am out of here. Have a great weekend all!