Steve CoxKonto zweryfikowane

If you assume that every gun owner who kills somebody only kills one person (either themselves or somebody else), divide 33,000 deaths per year into 1 million gun owners. You get 30 years and 4 months. That's how long it would take to get to 1% of gun owners at the present rate.

So, sincerely, I know it seems counter-intuitive to people who don't know the data, and don't consider social and economic factors, but truly, it's not the guns *causing* gun crime. They're a symptom, not a cause. Now, I'll get to the 1993 bit...

Steve - Your response is compelling and I believe in the connections between poverty and violence. The four poorest states in the US have the highest violence rates, and the 8 poorest states in US are among the 10 states with the highest gun death rates (suicide + violence).

I just wish people would hear me out instead of freaking out, calling me a Republican, accusing me of taking money from the NRA, and then blocking me. But I can only control me. *sigh*

They don't treat them as a right. They are a privilege. They also recognize that, like drugs, the risks they pose require, even if by a few, are too costly to society. Regulation is needed, and among the law-abiding, it is reasonable to accept that regulation.

Do you really think drugs are a risk to society?

I would like addiction managed as a health issue, and believe that more equitable economies would keep more people out of the drug economy. But when I look at the opioid crisis [that is what hit my family], I know regulation is needed on some types of drugs.

Opioid addiction starts at pharmaceutical companies, then leads to heroin. Heroin kills because people are used to doing X amount then get more-pure stuff and OD. Gov regulation would prevent that, and taxation could treat addicts. My .02