Did you also read the part of my post where I note that the statistic is meaningless? Or that the focus on GUN violence distorts/perverts the discussion; that we should be looking at the statistic of overall violence rather than simply gun violence? And why do we look specifically at GUN violence and then attempt to restrict access to guns by law abiding citizens when we don't do the same for other flavors of  homicide: vehicular, clubings, stabings, beatings, drownings, poisonings, etc. Why is the gun the only implement that is vilified? Why aren't the number of time a firearm saves lives included in the argument? After all, if a firearm saves just one life, isn't it worth assuring that when someone not disqualified from having one, needs one, they can have access to one?