Comment: Yes, that is exactly the difference.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The most simple explanation I (see in situ)

Yes, that is exactly the difference.

I would probably change "wrong or immoral" to "hurtful to other people"...but in a nutshell, you pretty much posted exactly what I was going to post.

While that definitely refutes Jon's argument, I find the broader argument for gun control harder to refute. That argument goes something like: gun ownership should be regulated by the govt because owning a gun impose a risk on other people who didn't consent to accept that risk.

Just to play devil's advocate, isn't that pretty much exactly the reasoning we use to justify laws against drunk driving?

Generally speaking, laws that try to manage behavior that's "risky" to other non-consenting people is a real gray area for me.

Maybe it comes down to weighing the risk of the action, the benefit of the risky action, the effectiveness of the legislation to minimize the risk, and the inconvenience/cost of that legislation.