[Glyptodon]

The problem I have with "safetyism" is it comes across as something you can say about cars, knives, power tools, skis, hang gliders, and so many other things. Like do I buy that even though ski deaths are lower in non-skiing households, just like gun deaths are in non shooting ones, that it's less impactful and important than the same effect with guns? Sure. But it's also a conversation that is soooo patronizing in a ridiculous way that it really seems like a double standard. And so much of it seems disingenuous. Like do we focus on enabling safe storage and mental health safety with guns or making it harder? On making kids and families more knowledgeable and safer around guns or just amping up the anxiety and fear?

[yeetawayhn]

> Like do we focus on enabling safe storage and mental health safety with guns or making it harder? On making kids and families more knowledgeable and safer around guns or just amping up the anxiety and fear?

The only way to move forward is through good faith efforts of the former and stopping the lobby groups from doing the latter.

Power tools are intentionally dangerous too. A reasonable person wouldn't take anyone who talks about how a household with power tools is less safe on average seriously either. Or one who moves the goalpost to battleships.

[alistairSH]

The big difference in my mind is guns are intentionally dangerous. They were made to kill first, sporting applications are all secondary.

Or, to flip your argument, if guns are fine, why not grenades or bazookas or battleships?