First, I want to say that I completely agree that ending the War on Drugs will help curb organized crime.
There are plenty of proposed policies that will still allow reasonable people to have guns (the goal is for crazy people not to have them), so it’s not like anyone who wants gun reform will confiscate your guns. Examples are universal background checks and gun licensing laws (a gun licensing process can take about 3 weeks, so it can deter impulsive gun purchases by mentally unstable people. This was enacted in Connecticut, and it reduced suicides and homicides). But the NRA wouldn’t support those policies. 72% of NRA members support a universal background check, but given the money the NRA takes from gun companies, the NRA seems to care more about the gun companies more than the individual gun owners.
Next, just because there’s a low death rate doesn’t change that fact that 4000 people died. That’s like if I said that 11 million people died in the Holocaust out of 2.5 billion people on Earth at the time, so you’re chances of dying in the Holocaust are only 0.44%. That’s an absurd argument to make because the raw number of deaths is what matters. It’s especially troubling given the gun deaths in other countries. Japan, for example, has about 10 or less gun deaths a year. If you want to talk about proportions, America’s population is double of Japan, yet our gun death rate is 400 times that of Japan (from individual homicides). This is largely a product of sensible gun control legislation in Japan, which also explains the low gun deaths in other countries relative to the US. People in other countries still have guns, but the regulations prevent bad people from getting them.
If you want to say that money is speech, then things like murder-for-hire should be legal. By your logic, all you’re saying is “I’m using my speech to say that it would be nice if this person was dead.” That would also mean that things like prostitution and gambling should be legal, but you don’t see anyone trotting out that argument for those instances. The idea of money being speech disproportionately helps people in power, when the purpose of free speech is to give all people an equal footing. And sure, some corrupt person could come in and stop the lobbying from only their political enemies, but that doesn’t mean we give up. It just means that we need to ensure that someone who’s not corrupt (notice I’m not saying someone I agree with, just someone who’s not corrupt and doesn’t take big money) comes in and reforms the system to make it fair. I don’t know what the exact solution is, but I don’t think it’s something we should just accept.
