[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
If some action would reduce accidental death it is a fine reason. If you want to convince me that the death of this young child was worth the benefits that general gun ownership conveys then by all means try. But please don't insult my intelligence with the 'if it wasn't the gun that killed him it could easily have been a car accident or the rat poison under the sink' angle.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I won't insult your intelligence. Maybe the correct way to view this is simply regulating dangerous products -- and restricting their use in such a way that we can minimize accidents.

--With guns, we can use gun cases and trigger locks to reduce accidents. While this does somewhat restrict their legitimate use -- the savings in life may justify it.

--Back to automobiles. We could go back to the 55 mph speed limit -- that saved lives. But I think 40,000 deaths is still too high. We should reduce it to 40 ... or better yet 30. No, make it 5 mph -- that will save all 40,000 lives!

It is within our power to do this. Picking any number higher than 5 would mean you believe there is an acceptable casualty rate as a trade-off for utility. And this can't be, since ...

[ QUOTE ]
If some action would reduce accidental death it is a fine reason.

[/ QUOTE ]