re: #36 iossarian

The point is simply that, in the aggregate, guns make people less safe, not safer.

Yes, in aggregate. But not every single freaking case, and pretending that the gun myth is entirely a myth is silly.

I think it’s disingenuous to say that people who cite statistics that show that guns make people less safe are denying that in some cases, a gun might be useful. Obviously in any statistical analysis you have events that fall outside the expected range.

In what way am I being disingenuous? You just flat-out stated there’s no such thing as a responsible gun owner.

The point is, simply, people would be safer (and thus, according to a certain moral calculus, better off) if they didn’t have guns, on average. And since you can’t tell in advance which people are going to turn out to be on the “lucky” side of the equation, the way to improve aggregate utility is to restrict guns.

You can tell some people who are more validly needful and capable, such as a woman who is being stalked and has taken tactical-self protection classes.

Or a black family in a heavily racist area where they’ve just had a cross burned on their lawn.

I absolutely agree that the case is to be made about the guns in aggregate. That’s why talking about the aggregate is important, rather than saying there’s no such thing as responsible gun ownership.