The phrase “gun violence”, much like the phrase, “militants”, is sufficiently ambiguous so as to lay blame on all sides. The offender, and the defender. Thats why they will never try to compute the “benefits” of gun ownership.
And why they constantly refer to “mid-east violence”, instead of ever referring to actual “terrorists”, who cause the problemskk in the first place.
In the case of “gun violence”, it allows them to escape the hard work of identifying the people who are actually causing the trouble. They might have to do something then, rather than just use the issue to advance their strentghen government constrain the people agenda.
“If there was a measure on the ballot that called for increased tax rates to pay for an increased prevention of gun violence, how would you vote?”
That is one of the most lame assertions that I have ever heard. Increase taxes to prevent gun violence? How does that person get from point A to B?
Poor, violent, crime-ridden urban neighborhoods have fewer guns per household than wealthy, quiet, safe suburban neighborhoods.
If libs wanted to do something about gun crime, they could support programs to encourage gun ownership among poor urban residents, instead of preventing it. The question might be, "How much would you be willing to pay to subsidize gun purchases by poor people?"
But libs will never be able to wrap their minds around this concept, or understand the Second Amendment, their heads would explode.
Well, lets see. $1,000 per gun, another $200 in training and $300 in range time and ammo. How about $1,500 per US citizen that has not been convicted of a felony. Make it a tax deduction.
That aught to make the libs head explode.