While I do like the drugs and guns correlation a bit because I'm sure some of the aspects are related, I have to go back to my statement that "300 million guns is less dangerous than 600 million guns" for a minute. I was thinking about how ultra-restriction would limit the number of guns and I think there is still some merit of thought there, BECAUSE... With drugs, anyone can produce them in their basement or garage. That's why prohibition doesn't work - we can simply find a chemist and make literally anything we want. Whereas with guns, you cant just produce a working gun, especially a semi-auto. I mean you gotta be some sort of wizard to make a working gun, right?
So I still think if there were *less* guns than there are right now (300 million is overkill), it would limit the number of guns that bad people can obtain access to in the future. Not now! ... But in the future, like 2050 or so.
I'm not for banning guns at all, I hope no one read it like that. I just think they should be very, very restricted. You *can* still get guns in Japan but it's soo unbelievably hard and only people who truly want a gun get them.
I think people who only truly want guns should go through the process to get them. Not anyone. My youngest brother could get a gun right now if he wanted and trust me, he shouldn't have one. It's not right.