Apologies if I didn't answer the benefit-risk ratio clearly.

Through personal experience, history and education there is little risk. Through the same personal experience, history and education I have experienced many personal benefits of target shooting, hunting and establishing a personal level of security.

The benefits far outweigh the risk.

>>>>And by the way a car has some actual uses for society and duh it's wasn't made with the sole purpose of killing so trying to link the two is also stupid.
>>>
>>>That's the way I look at it. As I pointed out to Jake last week you can look at risk-benefit ratio rather than fixating on just the risk. Assuming risk for low or no benefit is stupid.
>>>
>>>There are a few occupations such farmers and hunters where a case can be made that the benefit-to-risk ratio of owning firearms is reasonable. Not so for most of the US population.
>>
>>With you totally on first paragraph. Probably benefit-to-risk is different from cultures long disarmed mostly. But I fully follow Jakes and others logic that it is a bad idea to heap even more laws and regulations upon non-criminal population just because it is easy to do - they should enforce existing legislation, make more spot checks on hidden carry and throw the book at criminals using weapons in crime.
>
>As I pointed out to Jake, determining a benefit-to-risk ratio is separate from regulations and their restrictions on liberty (actually getting back to the original thread topic!).
>
>One may estimate that ratio for their own circumstances and come up with a result that is excellent, stupid, or somewhere in between.
>
>Liberty means that one may choose to own a firearm even if that result is stupid.
>
>Having said that, I'd like to point out a couple of my personal preferences:
>
>1. That firearm owners make a serious effort to determine their own ratio (I bet many don't), and that when they do, they use reliable information about the risks and benefits
>
>2. Firearm owners concerned about their own personal liberties should recognize the liberties of others. A simplistic example, the right to not have a firearm pointed at them (except in extremely limited circumstances). A more subtle example - the right to live in a house where one is free of the threat of being shot to death by a visiting 4 year old nephew.
>
>Where does the state fit into all of this? The state is mandated to protect the public. Via regulations, it needs to strike a balance between preserving individual liberties and minimizing risk to the population at large. That's the dilemma the US wrestles with every time there's a high profile firearm incident.
>
>I agree that any regulations enacted should be enforceable, and carry serious penalties for violators.