gun violence control through mandatory liability insurance and taxation - from Forbes

[Toronto]

78. You will excuse the late reply, but it was 2 am EST, the time

of my last post.

I think that rural people treat their guns with respect because for rural people guns have a distinct purpose besides self defense. To people in rural areas guns are tools like any others, and so are given the appropriate care and attention. Rural children are taught to respect guns and not treat them like toys. Urban and sub-urban dwellers don't think like rural people. They live in a disposable, consumeristic world. If something is stolen, it can be replaced, with no thought as to what became of it after it was stolen. It's just another piece of replaceable property. The proof of that is the number of unlawful guns in circulation. Urban people are far less likely to teach their children about guns - in part because they don't respect them themselves. Many guns are purchased by urban citizens on a whim - a passing thought that it may come in handy one day. No attention paid to appropriate storage, cleaning or training.

I don't deny the connection between drugs and guns. But if it were not drugs, it would be something else, for the criminal element will always find something that is in short supply, or some way to manipulate the weaknesses in society. Drugs fulfill that purpose very well. Police expend massive resources already trying to eradicate dealers from the street. Prisons are full of them, but for every one they put away, there is one to replace them, because the dealers come from a world where they live without purpose and without any hope of a purpose in the future. What's that old saying about idle hands. Society tries to hold the drug dealers and drug addicts accountable, by imprisoning them. You can't tax or license or charge insurance for something that isn't legal to begin with. In the long run it is more expensive to jail them than to leave them alone, except for the fact that the drugs they sell end up in the hands of the average school kids, and some of them die or become addicts themselves. So society keeps shelling out hard earned tax dollars to chase them down and imprison them. Unfortunately it doesn't work, but no one wants to do what it would really take to eliminate the problem, and that is to address poverty, particularly in big cities.

The "drug culture" as you call it, is primarily confined to the poorer elements of society. Sure, some people of means use drugs recreationally, but the most common recreational drug is marijuana and truth be told, it has fewer harmful affects than alcohol. Just like during the time of prohibition, it was the prohibition that attracted the criminal element. Perhaps if they made it legal, it could be taxed and regulated like alcohol and tobacco. It's hard to keep something out of peoples hands that grows from seeds. It's not called "weed" for nothing. It would in fact become a profitable cash crop for farmers. I doubt however, that the seriously addictive concoctions coming out of the illegal drug labs can ever become legal, because of the severe health consequences. The only logical conclusion is that society wants the ability to choose to be high at some point or other and perhaps the solution is to create harmless drugs that fulfill that purpose, squeezing out the criminal element. Then they could tax, license and charge insurance - what we call sin tax. I don't know if this is the response that you are looking for, but it's the best I can come up with.