Eh, the same could be said about cars (easy to lose control and kill a bunch of people) but their benefit is so useful that we applied controls rather than outlawing them. Over a century or so we've applied various braking technologies, crumple zones, seat belts air bags, etc... Gambling could be treated the same way and with the advent of big data the benefits may outweigh the harms.

That's what I'm saying. The benefits won't outweigh the harm. Do we really want to encourage people to gamble their hard earned money so some advertisers can make slightly better market forecasts?

The same kind of arguments are used to argue against the Second Amendment: "I don't care if guns make people safer in their homes. If it's that easy to lose control and shoot your spouse, we shouldn't encourage it."

The fact that immoral men exist and occasionally do terrible things should not bias us against the vast majority of good men for whom such acts are unthinkable.

Comparing gambling to guns-in-USA is not a great example, because many other countries do not recognise the right of the people to guns.

If it's that likely that you're going to shoot your spouse, then you're not safer in your home, are you? Well maybe you are, but your spouse isn't.

Also, if we apply the argument of the original commenter is "We should encourage people to gamble in the name of slightly accurate polling". Now many people have concluded that owning a gun is worth the risk of accidentally shooting your spouse. But who here wants to throw away money to make election polling slightly better.

Can't you say the same thing about stores and credit cards? I dont think gambling is really much worse.

I don't know what "much worse" is, but there's gotta be a line somewhere. That line is currently somewhere between gambling and credit cards.