The flaw in this argument is that guns and pools have very different uses.
You can't swim in a gun.
Guns have no useful purpose. The fact that pools are more dangerous doesn't justify owning a gun, so there is no "cognitive dissonance" here.
You don't want a gun in your house regardless of any other dangers that exists, just like you want to child proof the house.
You want a pool for the same reason you want a bicycle: it provides lots of benefit. Ultimately we make a choice that the benefit of the pool or the benefit of a bicycle for the child is greater than the risk.
You can't swim in a gun.
Guns have no useful purpose. The fact that pools are more dangerous doesn't justify owning a gun, so there is no "cognitive dissonance" here.
You don't want a gun in your house regardless of any other dangers that exists, just like you want to child proof the house.
You want a pool for the same reason you want a bicycle: it provides lots of benefit. Ultimately we make a choice that the benefit of the pool or the benefit of a bicycle for the child is greater than the risk.
We can't eliminate all the risk.
We can eliminate unnecessary risk (like guns).