On freedom and risk...

Leonard Pitts is actually right for once here. Risk IS a part of freedom, and so living with risk is indeed part of being free. I wonder, though, just how far he's willing to take that line of thought. There are those who say that the access to guns that we have here in the United States leads to thousands of preventable deaths. (Yes, I know there are quite a few elephants in the room that go ignored, but for now we're going to look at focusing on the guns for the sake of the argument.) From what I've read, Pitts seems to be among those. Is he willing to say that the freedom to own and carry the weapon of one's choice is worth the risk of armed robbery or death at the hands of those who violate the social contract by which we live? Or is he just using the "living with risk is the cost of freedom" line to advance his own arguments and/or agenda? Somehow I think I know the answer.