A recent thread sort of asked why we can't have cogent discussions about guns. [View all]

It's largely because the two sides of the issue live in separate universes with separate rules of logic and laws of physics.

Beyond the fact that people who hang out in places like the gungeon are deeply invested in the issue of guns and are arguably on the fringe of gun owners as a whole the two sides talk past each other instead of to each other. I found a characterization of this split in outlook in a book I'm reading about law suits and the gun industry. The book is ostensibly neutral but I haven't read enough to make a judgement on that and it's an uphill slog, like reading a phone book, fact filled but extremely sleep inducing.

In chapter one the author discusses the problem with studies and statistics. Criminologists and Medical professionals approach the topic from two distinctly different places and, like us, talk past each other. Criminologists see gun violence as a criminal issue. After all, Crime is in the name, right? Medical researchers see it as a vector issue. Medical researchers look at all injuries involving guns, criminologists see only crime related injuries. That means that accidents and suicides are given short shrift by criminologists.

Putting this in an allegory about the Zika virus it works out like this:

Medical researchers look at microcephaly and conclude that it is caused by the Zika virus, analogous to looking at wounds and concluding that guns caused them. Criminologist would look at microcephaly and see that Zika is spread by mosquitoes analogous to seeing wounds and concluding that a criminal used a gun.

The results are that the medical perspective is to control or defeat the vector; develop a vaccine or restrict exposure to the virus, analogous to passing restrictions on access to guns while criminologists tend to control mosquitoes thru insecticides and such analogous to strictly enforcing laws and harsh sentencing.

The problem I see with the criminologist outlook is that it doesn't address suicide and accidents, analogous to ignoring sexual transmission of Zika. We can't prevent people from having sex so why try addressing it (they'll just use another method of suicide) and you can't legislate stupid out of existence so why try?

Both approaches have merit but the two sides of the gun issue can't see or recognize that. There's also the perceived need to 'win' as if decreasing gun violence is a zero sum game, one side having to lose for the other to win. The truth is that both sides of the issue would benefit from a reduction in violence involving guns regardless of which model is applied.

And of course, some people want to make it personal and just pick a fight . . .