Because owning a firearm potentially harms others (that is the whole job of the tool, one would argue), sometimes at ridiculous scale for a developed civil society (gestures broadly to mass shooting after mass shooting and overall gun violence [1] [2]). An abortion is healthcare. I fail to see the comparison or how the two can be equated.

(Full disclosure: prochoice firearms owner)

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-da...

[2] https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america...

Compare: the percentage of gun purchases that result in ending a human life; the percentage of abortion service purchases that result in ending a human life.

If you can't think of any other use for a gun than killing other people, that says more about you than the tool mate.

It's an open ended, mechanically triggered, gas generator frequently employed to convert chemical to kinetic energy of a poperly dimensioned payload.

That has many many uses.

This is an attempt to technically excuse away a tool that you always treat as loaded until confirmed otherwise and you never point at something unless you intend to destroy what you’re pointing at. You’re not using it to open doors or fix tractors. A tool to drive nails into concrete with gunpowder is not a gun; it’s sold at Home Depot or insert your big box store here.

Invasive hog hunting? Sure. Self defense? Sure. Clay pigeon shooting? Why not. 45k gun deaths a year in the US, half of which are suicide? Also true. Regulate that which causes harm, that is the role of government. There is a large canyon between “guns for everyone” and “take away all the guns”, and room for improvement as it relates to harm reduction.

>This is an attempt to technically excuse away a tool that you always treat as loaded until confirmed otherwise and you never point at something unless you intend to destroy what you’re pointing at.

Same logic applies to line throwers, flare guns, seed shotguns, pyrotechnic shells, the myriad uses of a 40mm grenade launcher i fail to see your point. Something can be dangerous without it's primary use being kill someone, or else power cords would be classed as deadly weapons.

>There is a large canyon between “guns for everyone” and “take away all the guns”, and room for improvement as it relates to harm reduction.

Uh huh, and what the plan is is to eventually put in place enough friction that no one would bother buying more, then sit and wait for the old stuff to age out, right? That's not reasonable though, right, because we haven't gone through a century of having the thumbs screws applied to firearms in myriad ways; because we haven't had the mere presence, but non employment of a firearm turned into an escalation criteria from misdemeanor to felony with statutory sentencing stapled on? Because firearms haven't been "regulated" through a constitutional backdoor whereby the means of legally owning something has been mandated to have no Federal budget spent on it's upkeep, thereby infringing on a 2nd Amendment via indirection.

Sorry, not sorry. I'm more than read up on that minutiae. I know the arguments, and most of them degenerate down to "I don't feel safe other people are free to own those things." To which my response is, tough luck.

You want harm reduction? Maybe start looking at the core problem. Stop architecting the economic system to massively favor the capital wielding class. Pay people fairly, stop looking for fiscal growth potential for it's own sake, and decrease the overall risk of merely existing by rendering sane the medical infrastructure. Reinstate public works where necessary to create and upkeep infrastructure while increasing economic mobility and bounceback potential.

People tend to be much less violent when the game isn't so blantantly tilted in someone else's favor.

Just because you can use a knife as a doorstop doesn't alter the fact that it's designed for cutting things.

Are there any examples of countries that found a stable place within that canyon?

Switzerland comes to mind. Very high gun ownership rate, much lower gun violence/death rate.

Edit: One might also point to the UK, Canada, and Australia, but that wouldn’t be a fair comparison due to how heavily firearms are restricted in those countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzer...

Oh don't point out Switzerland gun control advocates hate it when you point out Switzerland. Because Switzerland shows that it is not the guns themselves but it is a cultural problem.

It is much easier to blame the guns than it is to put the problem right where it lies in a divisive media egged on by politicians that is stoking cultural problems. All for them to retain their seats of power.

Gunpowder based nail guns for putting nails into concrete are definitely a thing.

Additionally you can use certain attachments or rounds with guns for breaching doors. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaching_round