I wouldn't take the lower end of the estimate, because most defensive firearms uses are not reported. Firearms are also already highly regulated, yet a number of illicit use still occurs. By your logic, we need fewer firearms regulations to tip the balance.
I don't understand what you are proposing that hasn't already been tried, done, or is completely impractical. Banning things, especially an empowering technology, has never worked. It is better to decentralize and distribute that power - in this case, it is a political power - fairly and equally among all people.
Oh, sure. Why not.
> banning things has never worked
I can think of at least one high-profile counter-example to this, specifically with guns, within living memory.
I’m done arguing with you; there’s no sense arguing with people who think that gun violence is just a political football. I pray you are never the victim of your preferred policies.
Which genocidal dictatorship are you thinking of which banned guns? Doesn't matter, because the idea is entirely stupid to begin with.
That's citing the maximum of the CDC estimate; the low end of that same estimate paints a more sobering picture.
If you take the lower end of the estimate, another way of saying it would be "nearly 40% of the interactions involving this product are used illegally." We strongly regulate things that have a much smaller chance of causing harm than firearms.
> Sure, just like providing food to starving people is the best way of helping them. Unfortunately, things are rarely so simple and black-and-white, right?
Your argument here is, what - it's not "so simple and black-and-white" to provide food to the hungry? I happen to think it is that simple, and black-and-white: there is no good reason that anyone on this planet goes hungry. We have more than enough resources to go around. I find any suggestion to the contrary to be deeply morally abhorrent.