are not solutions at all.

The above conclusion made no sense to me.

But don't expect anyone to listen to the rational side of this discussion.

After Orlando, I read two different columns in two different dailies, calling the media to task for not addressing the problems of crime and volence in America. One dealt with the persistent and embarrassing ignorance of the guns MSM is trying to ban; the other with MSM's unwillingness to look at problems in a different light. As one NPR (no friend of guns) noted this morning on the failure of any gun legislation to come to vote, the Democrats [and controllers in general] aren't sure of what they want. Do they want to address the "mass shootings," or do they want to deal with the everyday shootings which don't make the headlines.

I think we know the answer to that dilemma.

Perhaps it is time to step back, catch your breath, and look at problems in "a different light."

The question is how many more and what would really be most effective.

"nobody wants to take your guns"

Don't make a difference what is the next step? A complete ban? I'd actively oppose that step.

"The question is how many more and what would really be most effective. "

Exactly!
How many more deaths are needed to effectively cause gun defenders to identify with humanity instead of killing-insanity.

You are a doctor who has a patient with a high fever. First you give acetaminophen to control the fever. While it helps, the fever is still to high so you give more. When that doesn't work you move on to other fever reducing drugs, ice baths and so on. Yet despite everything the patient is still sick. Why? -You have never treated the underlying disease

It is similar with gun violence. Society is the patient. Gun violence is the fever. You can treat it with gun control but no matter how much you throw at it, you are only treating a symptom. The disease lies elsewhere. At some point you must look beyond the symptom and treat the disease to actually benefit the patient. This is why gun control ultimately fails, it looks only at the symptom and believes if it can just fix that everything is fine.

Treating a disease is difficult. Symptoms, whether fever or gun violence, can indicate more than one disease. A fever can be anything from the flu to the plague or a myriad of other things. Similarly gun violence can stem from poverty to mental health to many other things. Curing a disease is not easy and curing a society is even harder. But if we do not work to that as well as combating gun violence but merely pat ourselves on the back saying "at least they weren't victims of gun violence" we have failed ourselves.

And if you treat a disease the symptoms fade

what causes people to buy, and far more importantly, use those guns violently? There is the disease. Violence is our disease ; you can see it by looking at our violent crime rates after removing all gun violence.

Remove all gun violence and look at the violent crime rates, more specifically, the death by violence rates.

we are still higher than the majority of countries that we are typically compared to

you will still reject the evidence?

Well, here it goes


If you recall I am speaking of violence as the disease. Do you find violence acceptable as long as it is not done with a gun?

To the discrepency with guns.

which was even with out guns, we are a more violent nation. I find that worthy of concern. It also stand to reason that as we reduce our overall violence, gun violence will decline at the same time.

Without gun access unique to our us, the violent death rates are only slightly higher and could be improved to be sure. But the guns put us off the charts.

Guns aren't the symptom, they are the problem.

None of the gun related deaths between homicide by other means. It is likely a significant number would do so still keeping us far ahead of the pack

...in a debate about gun violence with someone whose premise is that the guns cause the violence.

Some folks has a preconceived solution. Their effort goes mostly to argue that the problem(s) fit their preconceptions.

Fact finders find facts in order to form opinions. Fault finders find faults to support their prejudices.

That even assumes that all deaths by firearms would be "erased" and some portion wouldn't occur using illegal firearms or by other methods.

yet, only a rather small number of people are addicted to these substances. I and hundreds of thousands of others walk right past these drugs, never having a desire for them. The drugs are NOT the problem.

The Japanese commit suicide at a rate 50% higher than in the U.S.? Since guns in Japan are as available as a cold Pepsi on the Plain of Jars, people there select hanging and jumping from high places as the most popular means. Therefore, since ropes and skyscrapers are in short supply in the U.S., one can reasonably expect domestic suicide rates to drop to insignificance should a GunBan© be enacted here.

And the hits just keep on coming.

Japan does not have a gun problem. Japan has a suicide problem. The US has a gun problem. Only fetishists and the NRA deny it.

So long gunner.

Insulting guns owners has been working so well for you thus far ---- by all means, keep it up!

Nice pronouncement with no real evidence to back it up. Try something brand new -- dare to confront your biases by reading Targeting Guns by bona-fide liberal Dr. Gary Kleck. Minds that are more educated than yours and mine disagree with the statement in my subject line. Read also Under the Gun and Armed and Considered Dangerous by liberal criminologists James Wright and Peter Rossi. They disagree that "guns are the problem".

Edited to add: The fact that U.S. citizens kill each other via all means at a higher rate than some other countries in Europe creates a huge problem for your argument as well.

a nation that relies on violence to resolve conflicts, will be a very violent nation.

And the millions of guns owned is a reflection of that violence.

Nuanced points. Thanks.

that endless wars are contributing factors. Whether another symptom or disease per my earlier analogy is debatable. Perhaps it is both.

or a need to dominate by (predominantly) males expressed as power politics?

On the one hand having these wars to contain the conflict to specific regions is an extreme form of Market protection. By keeping the conflict isolated in poor areas and away from Rich markets helps to increase profit. The fear of conflict spreading merely increases price and profit.

As far as domination much of the conflict is maintained either by former Colonial powers or what has been called the last super power. To maintain conflict, even over small states that they could eradicate with a concerted effort, maintains the sense of superiority and recalling lost Glory Days.

It's the guns.

countries. Even awash with firearms Americans murder more Americans using non-guns that Europeans do by all means (including guns). Not slightly more but at a 50% to 100%+ higher rate depending on the specific country. Think that might mean it is more than guns.

Firearms aren't that rare in most European countries. Yes rare compared to the US but there are still millions of legally owned firearms in Europe. There are more restrictions but they exist. With millions of gun owners one would think that if everything else is the same at least a few of them would be going on mass shootings. I mean even 0.01% of a million gun owners is 10 mass shootings a year. Europe doesn't have slightly less mass shooting or slightly less homicides overall they have two orders of magnitude less. Maybe that means more than just guns.

The homicide rate in the US was higher than UK and Australia BEFORE they put significant restrictions in place. In guns were the sole issue why did Americans kill Americans more frequently than Brits or Aussies did even before they severely restricted access to firearms? Yes the homicide rate in those countries dropped after the "ban" (more like restriction) but it also dropped in the US. The homicide rate is about half of the peak in the US.

Not the symptoms. Gee, I wish you all would put this much effort into ending deaths by alcohol. I guess those are ok for some reason.

of the prohibited products coupled with a vigorous law enforcement regime working at the state, federal, and international levels given the best funding and equipment will rid us of the scourge of substance abuse -- we were told.

..how many were under the influence of alcohol, illegal drugs or prescribed drugs with known negative psychotropic side affects?

killing themselves but for ease of access to a gun?

You seem to not want to talk about that were just mentioned.

The other 4, one hanged himself, one swallowed lye, one used carbon monoxide in the garage and one OD.

The two with guns, one was drunk the other was a hardcore drug addict.

Those are personal first hand suicides I knew personally.