In that case, I assume you would never let your child ride the bus to school, or go on a field trip, because someone may go all whacky and take out a bunch of people with his car.
And in addition to teaching your child how to swim, you must accompany them to every party at which swimming may be possible, just to be on the safe side.
In reality, you probably take neither of these precautions, because you are rational enough to realize that the chance someone will go all whacky and target your child is about the same as the chance you will win the lottery. For some reason, though, such reason goes out the window with many people when guns are involved.
You might argue that you are taking your "ban guns" stance to protect OTHER people's children, because it doesn't matter who loses that tragic lottery, it could have been prevented if only there were no guns in the world.
But that would only bring us full circle -- there would be no swimming pool deaths if there were no swimming pools in the world, and no automobile deaths if there were no cars. Many more people lose those lotteries every year, and even your child is more likely to die that way than as the victim of gun violence, despite all your precautions.
Guns are more likely to kill children who are already involved in crime, or who live in a home which gives them access to guns. Since neither of those things is likely true for your child, the chance that they will die from gun violence is vanishingly low. Yet many people's reaction is to call for a ban, more for the sake of "doing something" than because it is rational to assume such a ban will protect children.
