<<living has it's risks -- liberals tend to forget that>>
Classic example of an oversimplification - - "Living has its risks." NOBODY tends to forget that. The point is that risks can be evaluated, classified, sorted by degree of probablility.
When you buy life insurance, do you just tell them your name and where to send the death benefit? Before they sell you the policy, they want to know a whole shitload of things about you, Kramer. Pages and pages. Medical exams even. They don't just say, "well, it's Kramer, and "living has its risks, so fuck it, let's give him the policy." And guess what? They're not liberals. They're a fucking insurance company, but they organize their business around an approach to risk that is a little more sophisticated than your "living has its risks" bullshit.
Yeah, living has its risks, for the innocent shot down by a guy who never should have been able to even dream about owning a gun and also for the homeowner confronting an armed intruder. And the intelligent approach is not, "What the hell, let them all have guns, because after all, "living has its risks." The intelligent approach is to figure out how much mayhem we can anticipate if everyone can get a gun and how much mayhem we can anticipate if gun ownership is pretty tightly restricted. Because we DO have the statistical tools to enable us to study and analyze the situation. And what I suggested is that a country (the U.S.A.) with virtually no restrictions on gun ownership also has one of the highest national homicide rates in the world. Which in turn suggests that maybe the gun ownership laws need to be radically revised.