I'm not sure how being designed to kill changes the risk calculation. Cars are not designed to kill, but they are designed to do something that is inherently dangerous and potentially lethal. The fundamental thing is how much risk is posed, not whether the risk is incidental to the goal or intentional, right?

...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.)

I think I've put my finger on why it doesn't seem to explain things.

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.

But guns aren't about entertainment. Or, at least not to a large portion of the population. Even among gun owners, many own out of a sense of fear, not because they enjoy visiting the range or plinking cans.

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.

>Because guns are expressly designed to kill. And whats wrong with that? There are always two sides to every situation, a party that is bend on taking away someone's assets (possibly life) and another party defending that.

Nothing is wrong with it. Guns have their place. I was just answering the question - "why do people react differently to guns than cars?" Because guns are fundamentally different.

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).

Knives are expressly designed to cut. They serve no Purpose (ignoring cooking, as those are basically a proxy for proving how well one can cut with a knife). There is no reason anybody outside of the kitchen needs a knife to carry out their day to day jobs.

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.

This is ridiculous and you know it.

Nice throw-away. How 'bout you man up and own your opinions?