FiveThirtyEight has a piece titled "Gun Deaths in America"

[TeddyR]

That contains various graphs showing number of gun deaths that are suicides, homicides, etc. There isn't any new info here but I thought the takeaway from the last graph was key, and a point often made here: "The common element in all these deaths is a gun. But the causes are very different, and that means the solutions must be, too." As many have argued in this forum, it is disingenuous to put all gun deaths into a single bucket when promoting gun control. Link to story - http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

[morningfog]

1. Any solution that does not include limitations and restrictions of access to the common element

are not solutions at all.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. +1 ...

The above conclusion made no sense to me.

[SCantiGOP]

4. +2

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

[Eleanors38]

41. Have you noticed the cracks in the bulwark of gun-ban MSM?

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."

[Duckhunter935]

3. There are already restrictions and limitations

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

[morningfog]

5. Obviously, more restrictions and limitations. As many more as it takes.

[Duckhunter935]

6. It takes for what exactly?

[ileus]

38. To get to zero...

[Duckhunter935]

40. Of course

"nobody wants to take your guns"

[TeddyR]

7. So when background checks

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

[sanatanadharma]

8. How many, 26, 39, 49, 102, five more?; is there no magic number?

"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.

[Eleanors38]

42. You seem bent on mass conversion of the masses by first insulting them.

[sarisataka]

9. Consider this analogy

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.

[morningfog]

10. I reject your premise out of hand. Vaccines work.

[sarisataka]

11. A vaccine treats a disease

And if you treat a disease the symptoms fade

[morningfog]

13. The disease is America's gun death cult.

[sarisataka]

16. That would be the symptom

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.

[morningfog]

17. Wrong again.

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

[sarisataka]

19. and if you do that

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

[morningfog]

20. SHow me. Regardless, if you do that, there are far fewer dead people.

[sarisataka]

21. So you want me to show you but

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?

[morningfog]

22. And now include gun violence.

[sarisataka]

23. Here you go

I had to use Canadian data as I couldn't find a comparable chart from the UN; for apples to apples you can go to UN Global Study on Homicide

Do not mistake that I have ever claimed gun homicide isn't a problem; I have not. I do see it rather as a major symptom of a deeper problem that many people simply want to wish away via gun control.

[morningfog]

24. The violent death rate discrepency without guns pales in comparison when

To the discrepency with guns.

[sarisataka]

25. But I proved my point

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.

[morningfog]

26. Only marginally so. But you proved the larger point: gun accessibility is the real problem.

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.

[sarisataka]

27. That would be true if

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

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. I question the prospects for progress...

...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.

[Statistical]

30. I wouldn't say 50% to 100% higher homicide rate is marginally higher.

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

[Eleanors38]

43. Oh! The wrongness! I live where Heroin, Cocaine, and meth are available and cheap...

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.

[morningfog]

44. What an idiotic analogy.

[Eleanors38]

45. The Hutu in Rwanda didn't need no stinking guns.

[morningfog]

47. And another!

[Eleanors38]

49. You have been repeatedly check-mated in this argument. Did you know...

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.

[morningfog]

50. Like pigeons playing chess, you gunners.

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.

[Eleanors38]

52. Their suicide problem is acceptable, then? Since they don't use guns? Hey, Zeus Christy.

[morningfog]

53. You seem to read words unwritten.

So long gunner.

[pablo_marmol]

56. "Only fetshists and NRA deny it."

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

[beevul]

46. Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

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

If that were true the deathtoll annually would be in the millions, seeing we know 300+ million guns are in the hands of 100 millionish people, and they fire billions of rounds annually.

You identify them as the problem because of the methodology you prefer for a 'solution'.

Nothing new.

[morningfog]

48. It is true, your logical fallacy notwithstanding.

[beevul]

51. There was no logical fallacy. N/T

[Marengo]

58. What is the logical fallacy?

[pablo_marmol]

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

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.

[guillaumeb]

32. It stands to reason that a nation that is always at war,

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.

[sarisataka]

34. I would be willing to conceed

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

[guillaumeb]

35. Are the endless wars a symptom of a capitalist system?

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

[sarisataka]

36. I think both

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.

[pablo_marmol]

57. I've always believed that hatred of war morphs into hatred of guns.

Members of my political team can't seem to differentiate between military arms and civilian arms. Gunz is gunz. Just evil.

Big part of the problem --- under-discussed.

[morningfog]

29. But by are far far less degree.

It's the guns.

[Statistical]

28. Remove all homicides by firearm and the US still has a homicide rate higher than most European ...

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.

[Duckhunter935]

12. Vaccines treat the disease

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.

[morningfog]

14. Bye.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. An absolute prohibition on the manufacture, sale, transportation, possession and sale

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.

[JonathanRackham]

15. I wonder, of the 66% suicide component..

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

[morningfog]

18. I wonder of the 66% who shot themselves to death, how many would have been effective in

killing themselves but for ease of access to a gun?

[Duckhunter935]

31. Or without those other items

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

[JonathanRackham]

37. Actually 2 of 6 I know used guns.

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.

[pablo_marmol]

54. As long as our side continues to brazenly lie........

........by burbling out phrases such as "epidemic of violence", we can expect that nothing will progress in terms of even fair suggestions such as UBCs.

Why should gun owners trust us? We've given them exactly no reason to do so.