According to a newly released study, gun violence and a lack of health insurance could combine to cost American citizens approximately $260 million in 2003. Here’s how the Democrats can make those numbers work for them. On Wednesday, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine published a study claiming that, in 1997, injuries from gunshots resulted in $802 million in nationwide hospital costs, and nearly a third of those victims were uninsured. This means that about 11,900 uninsured people were shot that year, resulting in expenses of somewhere around $260 million.

Assuming these statistics are accurate (and I assume no such thing in an area where stats are distorted daily to fit individual goals), it seems restrictions on gun ownership might be more readily indorsed by a populace that believes such restrictions could reduce its tax expenditures. This is particularly relevant if 91% of Americans really believe there should be at least minor restrictions on gun ownership.

So, instead of focusing all of their energy on convincing Americans that gun control is necessary because of the potential for violence, these new numbers allow a different approach. Now, idea hungry Democrats can approach the gun control issue by explaining how tighter restrictions will decrease expenditures because they decrease injuries.

Of course, one must realize I’m just an amateur pundit pensively prognosticating and all of this is just as likely to occur as anything Nostradamus ever predicted.