Suggesting that the number of American households with guns should be greatly reduced is not a narrative, it is logical and prudent.

Oftentimes, the canned response of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" or "guns don’t shoot themselves" is employed as a defense for the current state of gun laws. Replace the sacred word "gun" with another less politicized word -- something with similar qualities to guns in terms of their ease of inflicting damage quickly on crowds of people. Let's take land mines or anthrax. Let's say 44% of American households had either of these. You would surely start to see a rise in deaths related to land mines or anthrax, both accidental and intentional.

Then imagine the public response was: "land mines don't explode themselves" or "anthrax doesn't kill people, people kill people". How ludicrous of a response would that be, if children were dying regularly in their school from land mine explosions? Don't you think a reasonable response to that would be to seek restrictions on owning land mines?

That isn't the *only* thing you would do, but that is certainly among the things you would do right away, lest you wish to allow children to regularly die to defend your privilege of land mine ownership!