That's bizarre reasoning. A more rational approach would be to attempt to solve all those problems. It's not as if society can only focus on ONE cause of child death at a time. If your point was there is no problem worth worrying about, just say that. But if it's worth worrying about, then it's worth addressing.
I wrote a few lines, not a dissertation.
First of all, there is no gun control law that will actively prevent idiots from doing stupid things, or bad people from doing criminal things.... short of a total ban and confiscation and EVEN THEN you'd mostly just disarm the law-abiding. With 300 million plus guns in the country, that bird has flown; Pandora has opened the box; the Genie will not be stuffed back into the bottle.
Second, what I wrote is a matter of perspective. People who get hysterical about ONE child dying in a firearm accident don't seem to get the same hysteria about the far greater number of children mashed to a pulp in traffic accidents. The reason why is usually hypocrisy: the child accident is merely an excuse to advance an anti-gun agenda.
Thirdly, it almost always seem like "addressing the problem" means "more restrictions on law abiding gun owners" that typically wouldn't have made a difference in the case being cited. We've seen that this slope is not merely
slippery, it is
greased and there are people trying to
push. Give the anti-gun elements in government ONE new gun law and they want ten more; let them have NICS and they want registration and AWB's and more. So why bother compromising on an issue involving essential liberty, when the odds are any new "laws" won't solve anything and will simply be used to stage the next agenda item?
Those with a hidden agenda like to scream "If it saves one child it is worth it!"
No it isn't. We could save one child each year (or more) by reducing the parts-per-billion of arsenic in drinking water to 10% of its current allowed level... but the cost to revamp our water systems would be enormous, more than our society would be willing to pay. This was already decided a few years ago.
We could probably eliminate
thousands of children dying in traffic accidents by limiting all traffic to 15mph with governors installed in all vehicles... but we don't. The societal cost would be too high in lost time and wages and delays getting goods to markets.
We as a society decide that a certain number of deaths, yes even child deaths, are acceptable so we can zip down the highway at 70mph or more. So yes, we as a society value certain freedoms higher than a few lives.
The Second Amendment is about far more than hunting or self-defense. An armed person is a free person; a disarmed person is subject to whatever abuse an armed attacker wishes to inflict, often as not.
"
Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable …
the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States