Apples and oranges there. It is a criminal offense to drink drive where I am, and probably where you are too.

I find it a bit painful/hilarious that I actually predicted someone would come up with your second example about 25 minutes ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289280

That isn't true of cars or hospitals.

...I think you are suggesting that people consider the risk of cars acceptable because the risk/reward ratio is acceptable, but many people see no value in guns and so the risk/reward ratio is abysmal in their eyes. That is a rational argument.

If that is what is going on, then processing the risk/reward ratio is subconscious. If it comes out badly, people just think and talk about the risk. If it comes out well, one just doesn't think of that thing as risky. That makes some sense, but it doesn't feel like it fully accounts for the terror I read in such articles as this one in the Guardian.

(Incidentally, if you live in the country and keep animals, having a gun might not be strictly necessary, but it is a tool you probably do not want to be without.)

Let's say guns were solely about entertainment, no other use. Alcohol is also solely about entertainment, so it should have a similar risk/reward ratio. And in the US, about the same number of people (~10k) die of DUIs every year as die of gun homocide (~10k). Yet alcohol does not raise the same fear and terror in the population as guns. The original article even cited drunk teenagers as something we should not care about when there are people who own guns.

It feels like there must be something else driving the fear and revulsion of guns.

I think you're previous comment really sums it up. The risk/reward analysis just doesn't make sense to many people. To the extreme anti-gun population, the only possible outcome of owning a gun is somebody dies. And that is almost never warranted.

In many cases, it's the classic "This is why we can't have nice things." A few bad apples don't store their guns properly, causing some deaths, and it doesn't take long for the general population to shift towards an anti-gun stance.

I'm not personally opposed to gun ownership. I think we need better regulation of guns, though I don't really have any answers (and certainly none that are viable in today's political climate).

Encryption is expressly designed to hide terrorists. It serves no purpose (ignoring privacy, as that is basically a proxy for proving how well one can hide from the government). There is no reason anybody outside of the military needs encryption to carry out their day to day jobs.

Are guns somehow way safer than cars?

Pretty much anything which is dangerous is regulated. I mean McDonalds even has to put a sticker on your cup, stating it is hot. Somehow hot coffee gets stricter regulation in the US than guns. That is totally backwards and it just boggles the mind of the rest of us why so many Americans are so dense they can't see this.

It is harder to get a concealed carry permit than a driver's license, at least past the age of 21.

I'm not saying that there aren't more regulations that could be passed that would make gun ownership safer. I think there probably are. But to hold that car ownership is more regulated than gun ownership is not a tenable position.

Guns are regulated quite heavily in the US, you should read up on the subject before making the claim they are not. But to get to your car regulated part, it's different because cars are not covered in the Constitution. Plus, there's nothing preventing you from buying and driving a car at your leisure regardless of government regulations. You just can't do it on the government roads. You can drive your car all you like on your own property. Finally, depending on the year's totals, cars are often a greater cause of death than guns in the US. In most years you are more likely to be killed by your doctor than a gun, but that depends on how you interpret the data.

You coffee is more regulated than guns example is simply the most idiotic thing I've read on this site in quite a while. This provides why exactly it is difficult to have a proper discussion over such things because people who obviously have no idea what they are speaking of wish to claim an equal representation at the table.

I said banning guns because that is what the Guardian article was arguing for, or seemed to be.

Guns are only useful in rare cases for preventing or stopping crime, and most people don't have one or if they do they have never used it beyond practice.

PS. I live in the country and have most of my life. A gun is a very useful tool if you live in an area with wild animals.