> Bill Bartlett says:
>
> It is simply that there are some risks people are more
>> willing to tolerate. Its something the psychologists could
>> probably explain, something to do with a misplaced perception
>> that some risks are more within our control than others.
>>
>
> Right, so you're saying: let's pass a sweeping set of laws because some
> people are irrational.
>
I agree that policy shouldn't be guided by irrational public risk perception. But one difference between guns and automobiles is that widespread auto use -- even if it's not private cars -- seems necessary for an industrial consumer economy. At some minimum deaths from auto accidents become unavoidable, at least until we have reliable automatic control. Mass gun ownership seems to be largely a combination of inoffensive pastime and, well, irrational risk perception. The externalities from the latter are harder to excuse. Ok, maybe suicide doesn't count as an externality.
There's another problem with the comparison between the societal costs of automobiles and guns: there's a whole lot more exposure to the former for the two of them to be causing comparable numbers of deaths.
-- Andy "It's a testament to ketchup that there can be no confusion."