Baths kill more Japanese then guns kill Americans

[Straw Man]

142. You still can't see it, can you.

I'm not trying to show that "responsible" gun owners and "responsible" drunk drivers are identical in all ways. I'm really just pointing out that, in both cases, not all people who engage in the risky activity are equally responsible for the harm.

So you admit that your analogy is strained at best. See bold type for a meaningless tautology. Yes, your proposed equivalence is rough -- very rough. And again you persist in asserting it as if it had some significance.

But from the point of view of public safety, the existence of "responsible" gun owners/drunk drivers doesn't mitigate the need for regulations in order to mitigate the enormous amount of harm to society collectively by people who partake in gun ownership/drunk driving.

False premise, Dan. Owning a gun is no more inherently dangerous than owning alcohol and a motor vehicle. The danger lies in what is done with those possessions. A "responsible" drunk driver decides to engage in a dangerous activity and takes the chance that nothing bad will happen. A "responsible" gun owner behaves .... responsibly. The fact that you keep ignoring this distinction speaks to the weakness of your analogy. Some drunk drivers get in accidents and some do not; some gun owners commit crimes of violence and some do not. And this is the basis on which you want to ... What is it you want to do, anyway? Make gun ownership a crime equivalent to drunk driving? Ban alcohol? Ban cars? That would make as much sense from a public health perspective as banning guns.

And then there's the problem with the definition of "responsible gun owner". Pro-gunners tend to define this retrospectively: the people who shoot others or themselves are "irresponsible", so by definition "responsible" gun owners don't do any harm. Of course, the problem with this is that you can't tell apart the responsible from the irresponsible ahead of time.

That's your definition. I define it dynamically as people who follow the laws, who adhere to safe practices, who get training and education, and who behave in a safe and sober manner at all times. The fact that you see such people as a risk to society roughly equivalent to someone who chooses to drive while under the influence of alcohol suggests to me that you harbor an unreasonable prejudice.

You can certainly tell the responsible from the irresponsible drivers ahead of time: the irresponsible ones are the ones who choose to drink and drive. They have pre-identified as a high-risk group, and as such are rightfully subject to sanctions. Simply owning a gun does not represent a comparable threat to public safety, any more than owning a can of gasoline and book of matches makes one an arsonist.

LOL. Coming from you. Please.

Yes, Dan. Coming from me. You can "LOL" all you want. I have been insulted and condescended to by better people than you. Just don't try to pretend that your discourse is civil or that you are in good faith. You have no standing there.