What would you think of making this a required safety feature?

[Chas]

And you seem to be yet another who can't accurately gauge risk.

"[Accidental death] Among children: motor vehicles (34%), suffocation (27%), drowning (17%), fires (7%), environmental factors (2.3%), poisoning (2.2%), falls (1.5%), firearm (1.5%), pedal cycles (1.4%), and medical mistakes (1.3%)."

Have we adjusted those numbers for the larger amount of time people spend in cars than they do actively handling firearms?

The difference here, and the point that I was making, is that a car was not purpose built as a weapon, whereas a gun was. This isn't a controversial statement, surely? When you pull the trigger on a gun, it's going to do one thing, and that thing concerns itself with hurting someone else. And yet just anyone can pick it up and use it, whereas a car needs a key to start.

Oh, and also, as I've said before, something else being risky doesn't reduce the good effects of causing something unrelated to become safer. It'd be a very strange world if we had to increase safety in descending order of intensity.

It's neither a question of adjusting for use or the purpose of the tool. It is a question of how many lives could be saved.

Rationally, effort would yield more results concentrating on motor vehicle safety and water safety.