Then you seem to be agreeing with me. The number of people killed by a gun, in the USA, is effectively none as a percentage of all deaths. Added sugar is a vastly larger killer.
Chasing that last little bit is ridiculous. The perfect is the enemy of the good, so what’s wrong with staying here at good?
At some point, you need to balance competing interests. There’s an interest in reducing murders. But:
- Reducing guns might not reduce murders. You’re free to look at homicide rates by nation and try to guess when they banned weapons and see if you can spot the change. I can’t. And, as best I can tell by running a linear regression across nations by different factors, the primary reason for high murder rates in the US compared to European nations is the gini coefficient. Reducing the amount of guns was predicted to increase homicide rates.
- People have an interest in being able to defend themselves.
- Governments tend to be less murdery when their citizens can go politician hunting in their free time.
- Guns are a source of affordable food for a not insignificant number of people.
- There might be less intrusive ways to accomplish the goal, without having to violate the 2nd Amendment and item #3 above.
I gave no ban.
Papers around the world have volunteered to hold reporting on certain topics, based on research showing that the reporting just amplifies worse effects (e.g. suicide, copycat killers, etc.)
They should voluntarily test whether holding back on reporting this subject causes the numbers to go down. And, if the numbers do, they should take that to heart.