Your comparison has no basis in logic. It’s tempting, but it’s not valid.
A gun isn’t an animal with four legs and teeth. A gun is an instrument DEPLOYED by a human. Properly stored, it is no threat to the community, and cannot break free of its confines to threaten the community at large.
Properly deployed, it enhances the community at large, providing disincentives to criminal elements to target that community, and instead pursue communities with more ‘evolved’ opinion on the possession of firearms.
A gun can’t, of its own volition, struggle against its confines to break loose and menace a community. A gun cannot contribute to its own liberation like a restrained animal can. It can’t chew itself loose. It can’t pull itself loose. It can’t shoot itself out of its lockbox.
Even if a gun is stolen, or deployed by a child, or accidentally discharged, the gun isn’t, on its own, going to enhance its effectiveness through the exercise of its own free will. Unless, of course, you own an automatic weapon, and you can lock down the trigger somehow. Even in that case, you run out of bullets.
The pit bull equivalent of ‘running out of bullets’ is that the dog looses interest, or it dies.
Guns are inherently dangerous. Most have to be loaded. The have to be cocked, or a round must be chambered. There are trigger locks, safeties, palm safeties, slide locks, and other devices that contribute to the element of INTENTIONAL DEPLOYMENT.
Indeed, we ban (much to my chagrin) certain types of firearms for their lack of safety features, or their ‘intentional offensive nature’. Still, no matter what firearm you care to discuss, some element of intentional deployment must be present in some form. Safeties need to be defeated, the gun must be loaded by some human being, the round must be chambered or made ready to fire. There is no logical basis to ban any firearm on its ‘inherent danger’ to the community.
Explosives are another matter completely. Grenades, rocket launchers, claymores, etc. They are dangerous all by themselves.
Dogs can attack without the owners volition. It can contribute by its own devices to its liberation and pose a risk to the community.
It’s more apt to compare the housing of explosives or dangerous chemicals on your property to the housing of a pit bull. Chemicals, improperly stored, can contribute to their own improper deployment. Same with explosives.
Guns are far safer than pit bulls. Even street sweepers, AK-47’s with full auto, M-16’s, AR-15’s, take your pick.
Your comparison has no basis in logic. It’s tempting, but it’s not valid.
I can understand why you don’t want to address it. No big deal.
When you can change a single word, used in the exact same context, and you refuse to even consider it...well...