Support NeoGAF

[Blader]

I'm surprised we haven't had more private / academic studies funded, to be honest. (on both sides).

Because they're afraid to:

The CDC was not alone in avoiding firearm studies. The National Institute of Justice, an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, funded 32 gun-related studies from 1993 to 1999, but none from 2009-2013, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Private nonprofits, with some notable exceptions such as the Joyce Foundation, skipped over gun-related research proposals.

“Sponsors were spooked to fund stuff that had to do with guns,” said Swanson at Duke. He said younger colleagues got the message: Studying firearms was not a way to attract vital grant funding. It was a field without a future.

Even the few gun studies that received funding took steps to avoid detection. In 2011, the National Science Foundation awarded Swanson $300,000 for a study it described as “Testing Competing Theories of Violence.” There was no mention of guns in the title or the study abstract. But Swanson said the study evaluates the effectiveness of mental health firearm restrictions. He titled the same study: “Firearms Laws, Mental Disorder, and Violence.”

“It’s odd,” Swanson said, “but if you’re trying to do policy-informed research, you run into the fact that there are elected officials who don’t want to know the answer.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/

 

[Jonm1010]

They do this on purpose of course, create that false belief. Its not a surprise that people fall for the propaganda of those who want to take away individual rights.



This could be the into to a new Harry Turtledove novel about the collapse of the United States.



Love ya, Piggus...but do you really think that you can "compromise" on "common sense regulations" with the gun banners and after it is done they will just stop and call it a day? What do you think will happen after the semi-auto ban, when someone kills people with a bolt gun or a pump shotgun.

Noblesse Oblige talked about how he likes revolvers, and how he is a "revolver" sort of guy? So do you think that you are ok with going after people's rights as long as they leave revolvers alone? And how long do you think that would last after the semi-autos were gone...? They they will say you are a bad person when some whacko kills someone with a revolver.

Man you do love those slippery slope fallacies don't you? For someone that only argues the philosophical angle of gun control, you are really bad at.

 

[Zornack]

What I find frustrating is that yes, gun owners have decided to take part in a social contract that says "Yes, I'm okay with there being more gun murders and more gun suicides. I find these losses of life acceptable in the pursuit of my hobby."

However, non-gun owners are subjected to the consequences of this social contract against their will.

You can say the exact same thing about alcohol.

We live in a democracy and the majority are in favor of the right to own guns.

 

[Jonm1010]

What I find frustrating is that yes, gun owners have decided to take part in a social contract that says "Yes, I'm okay with there being more gun murders and more gun suicides. I find these losses of life acceptable in the pursuit of my hobby."

However, non-gun owners are subjected to the consequences of this social contract against their will.

Welcome to a major flaw in the libertarian model of society.

 

[marrec]

Don't go making sense...

Covering your ears and saying "la la la fundamental right" doesn't make sense.

If the core of the gun-nut lobby is "fundamental rights can't be fucked with" then there is literally nothing to be discussed.

However "fundamental rights" CAN be fucked with, and should be, so lets fuck with this one and make America safer.

 

[Piggus]

To say there is a discussion to be had about the statistics in support of gun control is to essentially argue with someone acting willfully ignorant. The evidence is overwhelming. Hence why I brought up the climate change analogy. That while not to the same strength, anyone claiming there is a major discussion to be had because no stats show anything about gun control puts the person on that end of the argument in the same willfully ignorant position as climate deniers.

As to the cost benefit analysis. Yeah, I can't see it. Explain to me what about easily owning guns for hobbyist purposes outweighs the cost to human lives. I really want to hear you make that case.

Again, I'm not advocating for a discussion about the merits of the statistics. Most people seem familiar with the statistics. What I'm saying is if you want change, you have to try to convince people that owning guns is not worth the gun-related deaths occurring each year. That requires discussion and leads to some level of compromise.

I'm not going to get into cost-benefit crap. There are multitudes of reasons for owning guns and everyone values that ownership differently. Are you willing to do the same cost-benefit analysis of alcohol-related deaths vs the benefit of alcohol? Probably not. It's really as simple as "I like to drink, so the 60k alcohol-related deaths area unfortunate but acceptable. After all, I'm responsible" compared to "I like to target shoot/hunt so the 30k gun deaths per year are... You get the idea."

 

[Sushi Nao]

You can say the exact same thing about alcohol.

We live in a democracy and the majority are in favor of the right to own guns.

Protip: immediate deflection doesn't help an argument. Nobody's discussing alcohol here.

 

[Zornack]

Covering your ears and saying "la la la fundamental right" doesn't make sense.

If the core of the gun-nut lobby is "fundamental rights can't be fucked with" then there is literally nothing to be discussed.

However "fundamental rights" CAN be fucked with, and should be, so lets fuck with this one and make America safer.

America is overwhelmingly against gun control past expanding background checks and the constitution plainly outlines the right to gun ownership. Pursuing a ban is a fool's errand.

This is like republicans proposing changing the constitution so that they can ban abortion. It's not happening. The people don't want it and the supreme court has already ruled in favor of it, just like with guns.

Protip: immediate deflection doesn't help an argument. Nobody's discussing alcohol here.

Protip: try responding to my argument instead of avoiding it.

 

[Raxus]

Thanks Obama.

Spoiler

Seriously, thanks.

 

[Jonm1010]

Again, I'm not advocating for a discussion about the merits of the statistics. Most people seem familiar with the statistics. What I'm saying is if you want change, you have to try to convince people that owning guns is not worth the gun-related deaths occurring each year. That requires discussion and leads to some level of compromise.

I'm not going to get into cost-benefit crap. There are multitudes of reasons for owning guns and everyone values that ownership differently. Are you willing to do the same cost-benefit analysis of alcohol-related deaths vs the benefit of alcohol? Probably not. It's really as simple as "I like to drink, so the 60k alcohol-related deaths area unfortunate but acceptable. After all, I'm responsible" compared to "I like to target shoot/hunt so the 30k gun deaths per year are... You get the idea."

You discuss with people that are actually open minded. Not the people making inflammatory points to rubs the other persons nose into things.

Change doesnt require 100% convincing. It merely requires the bare minimum support to obtain the necessary political numbers and willpower to pass the change being desired.

 

[appaws]

Man you do love those slippery slope fallacies don't you? For someone that only argues the philosophical angle of gun control, you are really bad at.

No. I am not arguing a strict slippery slope argument that one action necessarily produces the second. I am making an argument based on the character of the anti-gunners and their organizations, that they wouldn't go away after getting what they call "reasonable." Big difference.

I don't blame you though. This is the most often misunderstood fallacy argument cited on gaf, followed closely by the no true Scotsman thing.

 

[marrec]

America is overwhelmingly against gun control past expanding background checks and the constitution plainly outlines the right to gun ownership. Pursuing a ban is a fool's errand.

This is like republicans proposing changing the constitution so that they can ban abortion. It's not happening. The people don't want it and the supreme court has already ruled in favor of it, just like with guns.

I'm not pushing a ban.

I know I get heated when a formerly responsible gun owner (they're all responsible until the very moment they aren't) mows down 10+ people and go all "fuck guns forever" but I know deep down that gun-nuts are gunna nut so lets find a way to regulate and track the guns and their owners. You wanna take your toy out and shoot things that aren't people? Go right ahead, shit was fun when I was a boy scout. Did you accidentally drop your gun in Wal-Mart and it discharged because you're an idiot? You no longer get to have a gun you child.

 

[Piggus]

They do this on purpose of course, create that false belief. Its not a surprise that people fall for the propaganda of those who want to take away individual rights.



This could be the into to a new Harry Turtledove novel about the collapse of the United States.



Love ya, Piggus...but do you really think that you can "compromise" on "common sense regulations" with the gun banners and after it is done they will just stop and call it a day? What do you think will happen after the semi-auto ban, when someone kills people with a bolt gun or a pump shotgun.

Noblesse Oblige talked about how he likes revolvers, and how he is a "revolver" sort of guy? So do you think that you are ok with going after people's rights as long as they leave revolvers alone? And how long do you think that would last after the semi-autos were gone...? They they will say you are a bad person when some whacko kills someone with a revolver.

To be clear, I'm against any ban on specific types of guns, as like you said people will just use whatever is next available. But I do think there needs to be some legislation that doesn't necessarily limit the rights of gun owners but makes it more difficult for criminals or people with certain mental disabilities to get guns. Do I think people who want to get rid of guns will stop? No, but I would hope it would at least result in is not having these discussions so often.

You discuss with people that are actually open minded. Not the people making inflammatory points to rubs the other persons nose into things.

Change doesnt require 100% convincing. It merely requires the bare minimum support to obtain the necessary political numbers and willpower to pass the change being desired.

A person who thinks there aren't two sides to the argument is not an open-minded person. This discussion started with the idea that there are no "sides" and that there is only one answer to the problem, and that there is no discussion to be had. How are you going to gain that support? With discussion. By acknowledging there is in fact another side to the argument. That was my point, and I'm going to leave it at that as I feel we're just saying the same thing over and over.

 

[turtle553]

as someone who is pretty hardcore anti-gun, the compromise position i'd be willing to take would be licensed shotguns and bolt-action rifles only. no open carry, no concealed carry, no handguns, no semi-auto or full auto weapons at all.

you can have your hunting/target shooting hobby gun and your home self-defense gun (in spite of all data showing you're more likely to die by gun violence with a gun in your home, but whatever). i just don't see any reason for the rest of it. the drastic increase in CCW permits over the last few decades hasn't resulted in a rash of heroic citizens defending themselves and others from miscreants, and in fact it just seems irresponsible and stupid to ever draw and use a pistol in public. in any dangerous situation in which you are not literally john mcclane in die hard a CCW will not do you any good and will probably just result in you being shot by the cops.

But expanded CCW has not caused an increase of wild west shootouts between two licensed gun carriers over a parking spot. And it is also wrong to say that CCW holders have prevented no crime. It does happen quite a bit. The only question is how does that balance against the other downsides of an expanded gun culture.

 

[Jonm1010]

America is overwhelmingly against gun control past expanding background checks and the constitution plainly outlines the right to gun ownership. Pursuing a ban is a fool's errand.

This is like republicans proposing changing the constitution so that they can ban abortion. It's not happening. The people don't want it and the supreme court has already ruled in favor of it, just like with guns.



Protip: try responding to my argument instead of avoiding it.

Well if we are being honest to history, the supreme court of today has not historically held the position it currently is. By all logical accounts a liberal court majority would open the door to some pretty comprehensive gun control without any real court push back.

Though an outright gun ban would not hold up.

 

[Sushi Nao]

Protip: try responding to my argument instead of avoiding it.

That irony

Fine, if you need me to play into your evasion: alcohol is very heavily regulated and taxed in order to offset some of the social costs of its use.

I'm serious though, it's a logical fallacy to immediately say "what about cars/knives" etc. It's misdirection in order to stop discussing the issue, and you feel like it works because gun owners do it all the time and people can't be arsed arguing against unwinnably circular arguments.

 

[Joyful]

i wish i could vote Obama again

 

[Jonm1010]

No. I am not arguing a strict slippery slope argument that one action necessarily produces the second. I am making an argument based on the character of the anti-gunners and their organizations, that they wouldn't go away after getting what they call "reasonable." Big difference.

I don't blame you though. This is the most often misunderstood fallacy argument cited on gaf, followed closely by the no true Scotsman thing.

They might not go away but there is zero evidence that passing, say, stricter licensing and back ground checks would lead to banning handguns for instance.

You are creating an entirely fabricated narrative inferencing that one thing will likely lead to another. Call it what you want but it is idiotic logic.

 

[DECK'ARD]

They might not go away but there is zero evidence that passing, say, stricter licensing and back ground checks would lead to banning handguns for instance.

You are creating an entirely fabricated narrative inferencing that one thing will likely lead to another. Call it what you want but it is idiotic logic.

Ahem.

You're speaking to this person:

I'm proud, and proud to be an NRA member. Civilian gun ownership is the ultimate check on government, and the only one that protects all the others in the long run. I don't give a crap about sheep in other places willing to give up their human rights. Americans are not willing, thank God!

I guess everyone who has a point of view thinks opposite points of view are not rational. I think surrendering the human right, given by God, of self-defense because the state promises to protect me is irrational.

You aren't going to get much logic from an NRA member who thinks God personally put a gun in his hand.

 

[Jonm1010]

To be clear, I'm against any ban on specific types of guns, as like you said people will just use whatever is next available. But I do think there needs to be some legislation that doesn't necessarily limit the rights of gun owners but makes it more difficult for criminals or people with certain mental disabilities to get guns. Do I think people who want to get rid of guns will stop? No, but I would hope it would at least result in is not having these discussions so often.



A person who thinks there aren't two sides to the argument is not an open-minded person. This discussion started with the idea that there are no "sides" and that there is only one answer to the problem, and that there is no discussion to be had. How are you going to gain that support? With discussion. By acknowledging there is in fact another side to the argument. That was my point, and I'm going to leave it at that as I feel we're just saying the same thing over and over.

Being open-minded to ignorance, especially willful ignorance, is not a virtue.

This is the sort of logic that CNN used to bring on a climate change denier with a climate scientist. As if both arguments deserve equal consideration and have similar legitimacy.

We know guns and easy access to guns on the personal, home and macro level lead to higher rates of gun violence. Arguing with people that are acting like the science does not lean that way after showing them they are being ignorant is not worth continuing to be open-minded on.

I do agree that solutions is open for debate, but the underlying evidence in support of the statistical case with relevance to gun violence is pretty much settled. Or at least all the evidence points in one direction so comprehensively that to not acknowledge that makes the person either delusional or willfully ignorant.

 

[Zornack]

That irony

Fine, if you need me to play into your evasion: alcohol is very heavily regulated and taxed in order to offset some of the social costs of its use.

I'm serious though, it's a logical fallacy to immediately say "what about cars/knives" etc. It's misdirection in order to stop discussing the issue, and you feel like it works because gun owners do it all the time and people can't be arsed arguing against unwinnably circular arguments.

You argument breaks down at a moment's glance. The majority is in favor of something that comes with negative consequences. The minority doesn't want to deal with the negative consequences. So? You can apply this logic to any number of things and it all breaks down in the end. It doesn't matter that you choose to abstain from something and are therefore forced to deal with the negative consequences and receive none of the benefits, the majority decided that the benefits outweigh detriments.

 

[Jonm1010]

Ahem.

You're speaking to this person:





You aren't going to get much logic from an NRA member who thinks God personally put a gun in his hand.

Oh I remember, I even pointed out to him how flawed his argument equivocating a right to self defense entitles him a right to guns.

I just don't think his posts should go unchallenged to those who are reading these threads.

 

[Thorgal]

By this logic we should just not have any regulation right? Nothing should be outlawed? I mean if we take the position that everything is operator error, why should we ever ban or regulate anything?

of course they should be punished by the law ( cyclist have his driver license taken away + fine and forced to redo driver school to regain his license . the same goes for the other guy .)

And sure , stuff like guns should be regulated to close loopholes , i am in favor of that .

However to me , a gun has the POTENTIAL to be used as a lethal device.

to demand a full ban on it because of that ,where should the line be drawn ?


-The motorbike i use to go to work has the potential to kill someone if misused .

-the car i drive around has the potential to kill someone if misused .

-The Steak knife /cleaver in my kitchen drawer Has the potential to kill someone if misused .

-the chainsaw i use to trim down my hedge and tree has the potential to kill someone if misused .

-the Air soft rifle i shoot with at the fair has the potential to kill/hurt someone if misused .

And if we go to the extreme :

- The Pencil lying right next to me can be potentially used as a weapon to stab into someone's eye .

through deliberate misuse or operator error all of these can be used to harm or kill someone . should they therefore also be banned ?

what makes a gun any different then all of the above ?

 

[Piggus]

Being open-minded to ignorance, especially willful ignorance, is not a virtue.

This is the sort of logic that CNN used to bring on a climate change denier with a climate scientist. As if both arguments deserve equal consideration and have similar legitimacy.

We know guns and easy access to guns on the personal, home and macro level lead to higher rates of gun violence. Arguing with people that are acting like the science does not lean that way after showing them they are being ignorant is not worth continuing to be open-minded on.

I do agree that solutions is open for debate, but the underlying evidence in support of the statistical case with relevance to gun violence is pretty much settled.

Once again, I'm not arguing against the statistics. You're right, there isn't an argument against the statistics. The two "sides" I was referring to are people who place different value on gun ownership vs the cost in lives.

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

You continue to try and equivocate that banning guns for hobbyist purposes is on the same level of banning motorcycles. That if you are willing to ban one for being used for hobbyist purposes that you have to be willing to ban the others because they are essentially the same thing. It isnt. You are engaging in false equivalencies.

Your continuous assertion that it is a false equivalence does not make it so. Once again, the entire line of questioning was whether or not I would ban a hobby based on the idea that it would save lives. The discussion had nothing to do with what could, should, or would have to be done: it was a response to a hypothetical that someone else created.

The anti-gun argument is that firearms are not essential to everyday life: the same can be said about motorcycles. The anti-gun argument is that firearms can be used recklessly and endanger those around them: the same thing can be said about motorcycles. The point of the underlying comparison is to highlight the fact that our society embraces recreational activities regardless of their inherent danger and potential to end lives and that firearms are by no means the sole benefactor of that embrace.

 

[Sushi Nao]

You argument breaks down at a moment's glance. The majority is in favor of something that comes with negative consequences. The minority doesn't want to deal with the negative consequences. So? You can apply this logic to any number of things and it all breaks down in the end. It doesn't matter that you choose to abstain from something and are therefore forced to deal with the negative consequences and receive none of the benefits, the majority decided that the benefits outweigh detriments.

Bold of you to say that the lives of minorities don't matter.

 

[Fenderputty]

Has the ridiculous implication been made that there's no such thing as a responsible gun owner yet? Have we reached a point where simple ownership means one is complicit in gun related deaths?

 

[anaron]

please let something significant come from this

 

[DECK'ARD]

Oh I remember, I even pointed out to him how flawed his argument equivocating a right to self defense entitles him a right to guns.

I just don't think his posts should go unchallenged to those who are reading these threads.

I definitely agree it needs to be challenged, but engaging in circular arguments is exactly what he wants in these threads.

His ridiculous carry on over what the word 'ban' means over multiple threads was enough.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I hope Obama does this just so the courts can finally clamp down this un-democratic executive order nonsense.

 

[marrec]

Has the ridiculous implication been made that there's no such thing as a responsible gun owner yet? Have we reached a point where simple ownership means one is complicit in gun related deaths?

Every gun owner is responsible until the very second they aren't.

 

[EloquentM]

I hope Obama does this just so the courts can finally clamp down this un-democratic executive order nonsense.

Yes let's focus on the most important issue here.

 

[Zornack]

Bold of you to say that the lives of minorities don't matter.

Bold of you to pretend that's what I wrote.

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

Every gun owner is responsible until the very second they aren't.

Just like anything else, then.

 

[antonz]

So everyone turn their fire on the NRA, not argue amongst each other and create the us against them false dichotomy which the NRA actively encourages, and which these threads always descend into.

Provoked just as much by pro-gun posters misrepresenting other's comments along absolutist terms as those actually calling for that out of sheer frustration.

The NRA is playing both sides, is the enemy of both, and needs to be cut out of the equation completely.

The NRA is playing everyone there is no doubt there. There is a lot more in the way of people sitting down and discussing and we see it on gaf in pretty much everytime on the topic.

People completely ignorant on guns feel the need to speak as if they are experts which then alienates people who do know what they are talking about and god forbid the people who know what they are talking about try to inform the ignorant. Then the informed are "trying to change the subject" and other accusations.

It also kills any kind of chance to talk when people rush to the table saying ban them all!Seize them all! There are no such thing as responsible gun owners!

 

[stufte]

Every gun owner is responsible until the very second they aren't.

Everyone is not a murderer until they are. *shrugs*

 

[Hari Seldon]

Yes let's focus on the most important issue here.

It is the most important thing that can come out of this, because all this is is political theater that will never stand up in court.

 

[Fenderputty]

Every gun owner is responsible until the very second they aren't.

Awww ... so we have reached the hyperbolic and stupid assertion stage.

 

[Sushi Nao]

Bold of you to pretend that's what I wrote.

"The majority decided that the minority will be forced to deal with the negative consequences" is a perfectly accurate summation.

So, if the majority decides minority lives are forfeit, so be it. Might as well own the argument you made.

 

[Zornack]

"The majority decided that the minority will be forced to deal with the negative consequences" is a perfectly accurate summation.

So, if the majority decides minority lives are forfeit, so be it. Might as well own the argument you made.

Because the only people who die from guns are those who are pro gun-control?

Please, what are you even doing at this point.

 

[marrec]

Awww ... so we have reached the hyperbolic and stupid assertion stage.

Hyperbolic stuff like, "let's regulate guns akin to cars".

 

[Fenderputty]

Everyone is a responsible homeowner until a child drowns in their pool. Lets ban pools.

Everyone is a responsible homeowner until a child eats meds left on the counter. Lets ban meds or make people store them in county specified locations.

Everyone is a responsible driver until they look at their stereo for too long. Lets ban car stereos.

Hyperbolic stuff like, "let's regulate guns akin to cars".

I'm actually for regulating guns like cars. Stuff like license renewal. This would be a discussion though. Implying illogical fallacies to insight emotion is when I, as the gun owner, glosses over.

 

[Volimar]

It's funny how Obama wants more gun control for regular citizens but then decides he needs armed secret service protection for life.

President of the United States is actually the most dangerous profession in the country.

 

[Jonm1010]

of course they should be punished by the law ( cyclist have his driver license taken away + fine and forced to redo driver school to regain his license . the same goes for the other guy .)

And sure , stuff like guns should be regulated to close loopholes , i am in favor of that .

However to me , a gun has the POTENTIAL to be used as a lethal device.

to demand a full ban on it because of that ,where should the line be drawn ?


-The motorbike i use to go to work has the potential to kill someone if misused .

-the car i drive around has the potential to kill someone if misused .

-The Steak knife /cleaver in my kitchen drawer Has the potential to kill someone if misused .

-the chainsaw i use to trim down my hedge and tree has the potential to kill someone if misused .

-the Air soft rifle i shoot with at the fair has the potential to kill/hurt someone if misused .

And if we go to the extreme :

- The Pencil lying right next to me can be potentially used as a weapon to stab into someone's eye .

through deliberate misuse or operator error all of these can be used to harm or kill someone . should they therefore also be banned ?

what makes a gun any different then all of the above ?

Are you really trying to equivocate a gun to a pencil? Is this what it has come to? When you wrote that didn't it kinda make you step back and say there is likely some problems with that analogy?

We punish based on intent and action. We ban and regulate because we know certain things create an unreasonable level of risk to public health, safety, property, freedom and individual well being. It is also to prevent outcomes that can be reasonably inferred to happen with the allowance of certain things without a justifiable enough benefit. It is a risk/benefit assessment. Your argument is essentially saying to hell with the public good aspect of policy. The only thing we need be concerned with is the action committed. Everything up to that point is fair game.

 

[stufte]

Bold of you to say that the lives of minorities don't matter.

The minority of people on one side of an issue =/= minorities.

Reading comprehension.

 

[Keasar]

Good. About bloody time he does something about this.

Everyone is a responsible homeowner until a child drowns in their pool. Lets ban pools.

Everyone is a responsible homeowner until a child eats meds left on the counter. Lets ban meds or make people store them in county specified locations.

Everyone is a responsible driver until they look at their stereo for too long. Lets ban car stereos.

Except the difference here being you can't take a pool to a school and try to drown everyone in it.

Edit:

Home ownership and car ownership are both more strictly regulated and taxed than gun ownership.

And there is hilariously that.

 

[marrec]

Everyone is a responsible homeowner until a child drowns in their pool. Lets ban pools.

Everyone is a responsible homeowner until a child eats meds left on the counter. Lets ban meds or make people store them in county specified locations.

Everyone is a responsible driver until they look at their stereo for too long. Lets ban car stereos.

Home ownership and car ownership are both more strictly regulated and taxed than gun ownership.

 

[foxuzamaki]

Obama gonna give people this work!!

 

[Blader]

to demand a full ban on it because of that ,where should the line be drawn ?

I'm not calling for a full ban (not that I'm not calling for that either), but surely ease of use is a major factor in where you drawn the line? You could kill anyone with virtually anything; what makes something particularly more lethal than any other object is how easy it is to use and how hard it is to defend yourself from.

Yes, you could try to kill me with a pencil or a knife or hacksaw, but those are much easier to dodge or just run away from. If you try to come at me with a gun, well, I'm a good runner, but I'd have a harder time dodging a bullet than a pencil.

Guns also have significantly fewer utility purposes for the average person than cars, knives, pencils, etc.

So to answer your question: common sense.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Everyone is a responsible homeowner until a child drowns in their pool. Lets ban pools.

Everyone is a responsible homeowner until a child eats meds left on the counter. Lets ban meds or make people store them in county specified locations.

Everyone is a responsible driver until they look at their stereo for too long. Lets ban car stereos.

Swimming pools!

I think I have bingo.