True! I can’t speak for society, but IMHO that’s the price we pay—and by that I mean someone else, obviously—for living in a country where we can defend our lives and the lives of our loved ones with a firearm. Or two. Or more. And hunt. Don’t forget that we’re free to shoot animals too—where it has been deemed legal to do so. And stop the National Guard from doing the cold, dead hand-prying thing—unless the Governor declares a State of Emergency. To be a bit more specific about the debit side of the column . . .
The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control reckons there were 31,224 firearms-related fatalities in 2007 (including accidents and suicides). The U.S. population at the time: 301,579,895 (give or take a ten million or more “undocumented” Americans).
So, during International Heliophysical Year, people wielding firearms took out (nearasdammit) .0104 percent of the population. Quoted at sfgate.com, University of Mississippi scholar and essay collector (The Changing Politics of Gun Control) John Bruce seems slightly peeved at the notion.
Me, I can live with it. Sure there are things we can do to reduce gun violence, as Ralph points out below. But we should be careful not to throw the ballistic baby out with the bombastic bathwater. And there will always be a certain level of collateral damage.
What about you? Do you accept firearms-related death and injury as part of the cost of freedom?