CDZ I would like to believe the line put forth by gun rights advocates, but....

[320 Years of History]

One thing that amazes me about the gun debate is what I discovered when I looked at which states had the worst records of gun deaths and which have least restrictive laws regarding access to guns.

The ten states having the least restrictive gun laws are:

• Arizona (population 7M)
• Alaska (population .7M)
• Utah (population 3M)
• North Dakota (population .7M)
• Oklahoma (population 4M)
• Florida (population 20M)
• Wisconsin (population 8M)
• Texas (population 30M)
• Wyoming (population .6M)
• Mississippi (population 4M)

The emboldened ones are also among those having the worst rates of gun deaths.

The states having the most restrictive gun access laws are:

• California (population 38.5M)
• Connecticut (population 3.5M)
• New York (population 20M)
• New Jersey (population 9M)
• Massachusetts (population 6.5M)
• Hawaii (population 1.5M)
• Delaware (population .9M)
• Rhode Island (population 1M)
• Illinois (population 12M)
• Maryland (population 6M)

Not one of them is in the top 20 states having the worst gun death rate.

After doing that, I wondered whether there might be a correlation -- causal or indicative -- between rates of gun ownership and gun deaths.

States with the highest per capita rates of gun ownership:

• Wyoming: 195.7 firearms per 1,000 people.
• District of Columbia: 66.4 firearms per 1,000 people.
• Arkansas: 41.6 firearms per 1,000 people.
• New Mexico: 40.5 firearms per 1,000 people.
• Virginia: 30.1 firearms per 1,000 people.
• Idaho: 24.2 firearms per 1,000 people.
• Alabama: 20 firearms per 1,000 people.
• Nevada: 19.5 firearms per 1,000 people.
• Alaska: 15.2 firearms per 1,000 people.
• Louisiana: 15.1 firearms per 1,000 people.

States with the highest suicide rates:

• Kentucky
• Oregon
• Arizona
• West Virginia
• Colorado
• Nevada
• Wyoming
• New Mexico
• Montana
• Alaska

Looking at the information above, I have to suspect that my life is safer anywhere in D.C. than it is anywhere in any of the states having the highest rates of gun deaths. Accordingly, I cannot help but wonder:

• What the heck are the people in the states with the least restrictive gun ownership law states shooting at such that their rates of gun deaths outpace every state that is on the least restrictive gun law states list? Canadians, elk, moose, bears, snow, mountains, rich folks visiting Jackson Hole, Inuits, oil shale, magnolia trees...
  
  Of course, the answer options are presented in jest, but WTH?!?...What explains why the rate of death by gunshot wounds outpaces in places that mostly don't have a lot of people in them to begin with the same rate in places having much higher population densities? What explains that?
  • Is there a whole lot of carelessness going on?
  • Are there just a lot of really stupid people in those places?
  • Are there just a lot of really scared people who will shoot at whatever moves in those places?
  • Are there just a lot of folks with really poor aim/gun skills in those places?
  • Are non humans included in the counts of gun deaths in those states? (me joking again)
  • Are the bullets ricocheting off the sides of mountains and glaciers? (me joking again)
• Why is does it seem that in places having much lower population densities there is so much "reason" to shoot other people than there seems to be in places having higher population densities?
• Why is it that two of the three lowest population states, states that also have among the greatest available space in which folks can disperse themselves and not have to encounter other people whom they may shoot or want to harm them (Alaska and Wyoming), have both among the highest rates of gun ownership and the highest rates of gun deaths?
• Why is it that D.C. which has about the same population and nowhere near the same land area, has a lower gun death rate than Wyoming and Alaska? (Alaska has slightly more people than D.C.; Wyoming has slightly fewer.)
• If guns are so necessary for self-defense, what is going on in high gun death rate states, especially Alaska and Wyoming, that militates for so much self-defense and that results in such a high rate of human gun deaths? It can't be because the rate of threats is somewhat constant for were that so, higher population and/or higher gun ownership states would have to also have higher gun death rates.
  • Why is it that states having the highest population densities and generally low wealth aren't the states that also have the highest rates of gun deaths?
• Why is it that the states (Alaska and Wyoming) that have the highest rates of gun deaths and gun ownership keep showing up when one looks to see which states fare the worst in relation to what happens when guns are used?

The above are just some of the substantive questions that I don't see gun rights advocates answering cogently. I know that were nobody in any state to have guns, there would be no gun deaths. I also know that our population, at this point, is such that fleetingly few folks are adept enough with other ranged weapons that they could/would kill as many folks as are killed with guns.

Also, I know that while there may be a black market for guns, not everyone has access to it or is going to; the black market for guns isn't nearly as easy to find as, say, the black market for sex or drugs. Indeed, were I to want to buy some weed, cocaine, or illegal weapons, I honestly haven't the first idea whom I could ask and reasonably expect they'd have either or know whom to ask in turn. I suspect more folks do know how/where to find weed, perhaps even cocaine. I wonder whether that's even close to so for illegal guns -- not counting guns offered at trade shows/gun shows, which I am considering to be legally sold, at least for now.

I also realize that death by gunshot for ~33K out of ~318M+ residents in the U.S. isn't a high overall rate of gun deaths. The thing is that with gun deaths, the issue for me isn't whether a lot of people (in ratio) die by gunshot, but rather that people were killed.

About the only area where I've heard anything that makes sense from gun rights folks has to do with suicides and guns. It makes sense to me that guns being an easy and quick means by which one can kill oneself, folks use them for that. What's not clear to me is whether lacking an easy and quick method, the very same folks would yet try (succeed) to kill themselves. After all, not everyone has barbiturates around to OD on and just go to sleep and not wake up. (I'm not one to call if you want to kill yourself. Call me and odds are I say nothing or I'll discuss ways to ensure success more so than I will dissuade you from trying. To folks who want to commit suicide, I say have at it, just be sure not to fail because it's a PITA for the folks who care about you if you do, and nobody has time for that crap. Get it over with and let the rest of us go on with our lives.)

 

[FA_Q2]

"gun deaths" Is an irreverent term used to manipulate data.

The actual homicide rate is completely unconnected with gun laws:
Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws

The 10 highest states being:
Arkansas
Maryland
Tennessee
Missouri
Michigan
South Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
D.C.
If you want to curb 'gun deaths' but allow death in general to continue then sure, gun control is the way to go. That is utterly pointless IMO though. I prefer that we concentrate on stopping homicides more than worrying about what people kill with.

 

[320 Years of History]

"gun deaths" Is an irreverent term used to manipulate data.

The actual homicide rate is completely unconnected with gun laws:
Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws

The 10 highest states being:
Arkansas
Maryland
Tennessee
Missouri
Michigan
South Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
D.C.
If you want to curb 'gun deaths' but allow death in general to continue then sure, gun control is the way to go. That is utterly pointless IMO though. I prefer that we concentrate on stopping homicides more than worrying about what people kill with.

Really? You're going to post a link to an editorial and remark on semantics as your opening salvo in a discussion begun with observations and my own remarks pertaining to them and then questions based entirely on the noted observations. I realize that's exactly what I'll get from a lot of folks for whom I've come to hold in far less regard than you. I certainly expected better from you.

 

[Kalki]

Read 'The Second Amendment Primer' by Les Adams. It is filled with the American founder's quotes and views on guns and why the right to self-defense is considered necessary. Then, read Blackstone's 'Commentaries on the Laws of England', in particular the section on the development and origin of the concept of the natural human right to self defense and why it was considered a necessity. It was solely due to the fear of authoritarian governments, and to enable a last resort for the people to abolish a government that became tyrannical and governed against the will of the people.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War in America between the "rebels" and British soldiers, when the British army was marching to confiscate guns in the town of Concord to prevent the "rebels" from defending their interests against the tyrannical government that did not have their interests.

 

[FA_Q2]

"gun deaths" Is an irreverent term used to manipulate data.

The actual homicide rate is completely unconnected with gun laws:
Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws

The 10 highest states being:
Arkansas
Maryland
Tennessee
Missouri
Michigan
South Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
D.C.
If you want to curb 'gun deaths' but allow death in general to continue then sure, gun control is the way to go. That is utterly pointless IMO though. I prefer that we concentrate on stopping homicides more than worrying about what people kill with.

Really? You're going to post a link to an editorial and remark on semantics as your opening salvo in a discussion begun with observations and my own remarks pertaining to them and then questions based entirely on the noted observations. I realize that's exactly what I'll get from a lot of folks for whom I've come to hold in far less regard than you. I certainly expected better from you.

What the editorial states is rather meaningless to me to be honest. I used it because it conveniently outlined the states with the highest homicide rates - rates that are unconnected with weapon ownership.

That is the point that I made. It is not an argument in semantics. It is an argument that strikes right at the heart of the matter. You bring statistics on 'gun deaths' and I am rightly pointing out that such is nothing but manipulation of the data to ignore all other sources of death. If people kill with knives more often when you restrict guns then you have accomplished absolutely nothing. Look at the raw data rather than filtered by implement.

 

[320 Years of History]

"gun deaths" Is an irreverent term used to manipulate data.

The actual homicide rate is completely unconnected with gun laws:
Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws

The 10 highest states being:
Arkansas
Maryland
Tennessee
Missouri
Michigan
South Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
D.C.
If you want to curb 'gun deaths' but allow death in general to continue then sure, gun control is the way to go. That is utterly pointless IMO though. I prefer that we concentrate on stopping homicides more than worrying about what people kill with.

Really? You're going to post a link to an editorial and remark on semantics as your opening salvo in a discussion begun with observations and my own remarks pertaining to them and then questions based entirely on the noted observations. I realize that's exactly what I'll get from a lot of folks for whom I've come to hold in far less regard than you. I certainly expected better from you.

What the editorial states is rather meaningless to me to be honest. I used it because it conveniently outlined the states with the highest homicide rates - rates that are unconnected with weapon ownership.

That is the point that I made. It is not an argument in semantics. It is an argument that strikes right at the heart of the matter. You bring statistics on 'gun deaths' and I am rightly pointing out that such is nothing but manipulation of the data to ignore all other sources of death. If people kill with knives more often when you restrict guns then you have accomplished absolutely nothing. Look at the raw data rather than filtered by implement.

Okay...I'll look at it again later today.

 

[oldsoul]

Looking at nothing else but the connection between gun-ownership rates and gun-death rates, one could, logically, say that it stands to reason that if there is a higher rate of ownership, there would, in general, be a higher rate of death by gun. Similarily, I would imagine that NYC, having a caparitively low car-ownership rate, the vehicle-death rate would be lower in comparison to.. say LA.
Just something to ponder....

 

[Elvis Obama]

The Second Amendment Primer

One thing that amazes me about the gun debate is what I discovered when I looked at which states had the worst records of gun deaths and which have least restrictive laws regarding access to guns.

The ten states having the least restrictive gun laws are:

• Arizona (population 7M)
• Alaska (population .7M)
• Utah (population 3M)
• North Dakota (population .7M)
• Oklahoma (population 4M)
• Florida (population 20M)
• Wisconsin (population 8M)
• Texas (population 30M)
• Wyoming (population .6M)
• Mississippi (population 4M)

The emboldened ones are also among those having the worst rates of gun deaths.

The states having the most restrictive gun access laws are:

• California (population 38.5M)
• Connecticut (population 3.5M)
• New York (population 20M)
• New Jersey (population 9M)
• Massachusetts (population 6.5M)
• Hawaii (population 1.5M)
• Delaware (population .9M)
• Rhode Island (population 1M)
• Illinois (population 12M)
• Maryland (population 6M)

Not one of them is in the top 20 states having the worst gun death rate.

After doing that, I wondered whether there might be a correlation -- causal or indicative -- between rates of gun ownership and gun deaths.

States with the highest per capita rates of gun ownership:

• Wyoming: 195.7 firearms per 1,000 people.
• District of Columbia: 66.4 firearms per 1,000 people.
• Arkansas: 41.6 firearms per 1,000 people.
• New Mexico: 40.5 firearms per 1,000 people.
• Virginia: 30.1 firearms per 1,000 people.
• Idaho: 24.2 firearms per 1,000 people.
• Alabama: 20 firearms per 1,000 people.
• Nevada: 19.5 firearms per 1,000 people.
• Alaska: 15.2 firearms per 1,000 people.
• Louisiana: 15.1 firearms per 1,000 people.

States with the highest suicide rates:

• Kentucky
• Oregon
• Arizona
• West Virginia
• Colorado
• Nevada
• Wyoming
• New Mexico
• Montana
• Alaska

Looking at the information above, I have to suspect that my life is safer anywhere in D.C. than it is anywhere in any of the states having the highest rates of gun deaths. Accordingly, I cannot help but wonder:

• What the heck are the people in the states with the least restrictive gun ownership law states shooting at such that their rates of gun deaths outpace every state that is on the least restrictive gun law states list? Canadians, elk, moose, bears, snow, mountains, rich folks visiting Jackson Hole, Inuits, oil shale, magnolia trees...
  
  Of course, the answer options are presented in jest, but WTH?!?...What explains why the rate of death by gunshot wounds outpaces in places that mostly don't have a lot of people in them to begin with the same rate in places having much higher population densities? What explains that?
  • Is there a whole lot of carelessness going on?
  • Are there just a lot of really stupid people in those places?
  • Are there just a lot of really scared people who will shoot at whatever moves in those places?
  • Are there just a lot of folks with really poor aim/gun skills in those places?
  • Are non humans included in the counts of gun deaths in those states? (me joking again)
  • Are the bullets ricocheting off the sides of mountains and glaciers? (me joking again)
• Why is does it seem that in places having much lower population densities there is so much "reason" to shoot other people than there seems to be in places having higher population densities?
• Why is it that two of the three lowest population states, states that also have among the greatest available space in which folks can disperse themselves and not have to encounter other people whom they may shoot or want to harm them (Alaska and Wyoming), have both among the highest rates of gun ownership and the highest rates of gun deaths?
• Why is it that D.C. which has about the same population and nowhere near the same land area, has a lower gun death rate than Wyoming and Alaska? (Alaska has slightly more people than D.C.; Wyoming has slightly fewer.)
• If guns are so necessary for self-defense, what is going on in high gun death rate states, especially Alaska and Wyoming, that militates for so much self-defense and that results in such a high rate of human gun deaths? It can't be because the rate of threats is somewhat constant for were that so, higher population and/or higher gun ownership states would have to also have higher gun death rates.
  • Why is it that states having the highest population densities and generally low wealth aren't the states that also have the highest rates of gun deaths?
• Why is it that the states (Alaska and Wyoming) that have the highest rates of gun deaths and gun ownership keep showing up when one looks to see which states fare the worst in relation to what happens when guns are used?

The above are just some of the substantive questions that I don't see gun rights advocates answering cogently. I know that were nobody in any state to have guns, there would be no gun deaths. I also know that our population, at this point, is such that fleetingly few folks are adept enough with other ranged weapons that they could/would kill as many folks as are killed with guns.

Also, I know that while there may be a black market for guns, not everyone has access to it or is going to; the black market for guns isn't nearly as easy to find as, say, the black market for sex or drugs. Indeed, were I to want to buy some weed, cocaine, or illegal weapons, I honestly haven't the first idea whom I could ask and reasonably expect they'd have either or know whom to ask in turn. I suspect more folks do know how/where to find weed, perhaps even cocaine. I wonder whether that's even close to so for illegal guns -- not counting guns offered at trade shows/gun shows, which I am considering to be legally sold, at least for now.

I also realize that death by gunshot for ~33K out of ~318M+ residents in the U.S. isn't a high overall rate of gun deaths. The thing is that with gun deaths, the issue for me isn't whether a lot of people (in ratio) die by gunshot, but rather that people were killed.

About the only area where I've heard anything that makes sense from gun rights folks has to do with suicides and guns. It makes sense to me that guns being an easy and quick means by which one can kill oneself, folks use them for that. What's not clear to me is whether lacking an easy and quick method, the very same folks would yet try (succeed) to kill themselves. After all, not everyone has barbiturates around to OD on and just go to sleep and not wake up. (I'm not one to call if you want to kill yourself. Call me and odds are I say nothing or I'll discuss ways to ensure success more so than I will dissuade you from trying. To folks who want to commit suicide, I say have at it, just be sure not to fail because it's a PITA for the folks who care about you if you do, and nobody has time for that crap. Get it over with and let the rest of us go on with our lives.)

"I'm not one to call if you want to kill yourself. Call me and odds are I say nothing or I'll discuss ways to ensure success more so than I will dissuade you from trying."

Really? Does that include the people you love? And please spare me any assertions that no one you know would ever be in such a predicament. No one is immune.

A young person heeds the call of their country to help in its defense. They serve their tour and come home damaged by their experience. Should our policy be to encourage their suicidal tendencies? To ignore them? Or should we try to prevent them from going through with it?

Suicide is often an impulsive act. Suicide is also contagious. The statistics on the suicide rate amongst the children of suicides makes that pretty clear.

 

[320 Years of History]

"gun deaths" Is an irreverent term used to manipulate data.

The actual homicide rate is completely unconnected with gun laws:
Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws

The 10 highest states being:
Arkansas
Maryland
Tennessee
Missouri
Michigan
South Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
D.C.
If you want to curb 'gun deaths' but allow death in general to continue then sure, gun control is the way to go. That is utterly pointless IMO though. I prefer that we concentrate on stopping homicides more than worrying about what people kill with.

Really? You're going to post a link to an editorial and remark on semantics as your opening salvo in a discussion begun with observations and my own remarks pertaining to them and then questions based entirely on the noted observations. I realize that's exactly what I'll get from a lot of folks for whom I've come to hold in far less regard than you. I certainly expected better from you.

What the editorial states is rather meaningless to me to be honest. I used it because it conveniently outlined the states with the highest homicide rates - rates that are unconnected with weapon ownership.

That is the point that I made. It is not an argument in semantics. It is an argument that strikes right at the heart of the matter. You bring statistics on 'gun deaths' and I am rightly pointing out that such is nothing but manipulation of the data to ignore all other sources of death. If people kill with knives more often when you restrict guns then you have accomplished absolutely nothing. Look at the raw data rather than filtered by implement.

Okay...I'll look at it again later today.

I have looked at the tables in the article to which you linked. I scanned through the text of the editorial to find content pertaining specifically to nature and timing of the data, mainly because it makes the same statements as do the data I provided -- highest and lowest rates of gun deaths (homicides) by state -- and it identifies different results. The data in those tables is from 2012-2013. Look at the data I provided. It's from 2014. I have not compiled the data pertaining to gun ownership rates and so on for 2012-2013, so I don't know if the same apparent correlations exist for that year.

I realize that the content I provided in my OP does not show causality. It clearly shows that some sort of correlation exists. I also agree with the editorial's writer that "correlation... between just two variables doesn’t show causation. Similarly, it doesn't show the absence of causality.

I also think the cause of gun deaths is a function of multiple things, gun laws and gun ownership being among them, and I think that basing policy (or one's argument) on just one factor is inappropriate/illogical when there are clearly multiple ones playing into the matter. The factors that play into gun death rates, to my reasoning, the causal factors fall into a group of broad categories, including but not necessarily limited to:

• Rates of gun ownership
• Gun laws governing access to guns (this includes both ease of access as well as mere access)
• Gun laws governing the use of guns
• The sanity of individuals who possess a gun(s)
• The responsibility of individuals who possess a gun(s)
• A gun possessor's skill using their firearm(s)
• A gun possessor's safety in storing or transporting their firearm(s)

Based on what I've read and observed, were I a mathematician, I'd say that the equation that describes gun deaths as a function of those things is (1) absolutely not linear and (2) consists of coefficients or other components that place greater weight on one or more of those factors than on others.

Considering the various factors in play, one must ask oneself:

• Which factor(s) does one have some ability, in the abstract, to control?
  • For those factors over which one has no control, what can one do to minimize their role in causing N-more gun deaths?
• To move from the abstract to implementation, what obstacles must be overcome?
  • What is necessary to overcome them?
• If one overcomes them, what are the foreseeable consequences of doing so?
  • Do any of those consequences need to be mitigated in order for the net impact of having overcome them to remain positive?
    • If "yes," what are the mitigating actions will counter the negative impacts of the policy and also not dull the efficacy of the policies implemented to curb gun deaths?

Now, obviously, at least for now, I think it shows a dereliction of one's duty as a political leader to not address each of the factors to greatest extent possible. I think it is a near complete disregard for "the general welfare" (as opposed to one's own and specific welfare) for citizens to oppose implementing policies that address each of the factors to the fullest extent possible. The extent to which any one of the factors involved is or will be more or less effective at stemming the rate of gun deaths isn't a relevant point because the goal isn't to find the single or two most effective means of doing so; the goal is to reduce gun deaths, presumably by the fullest extent possible. If one factor were to effect ten fewer deaths and another 50, then combined we realize 60 fewer deaths and that's better than 50 fewer, and meaningfully so, not because it's ten fewer deaths, but because we have yet to master resurrection.

 

[FA_Q2]

"gun deaths" Is an irreverent term used to manipulate data.

The actual homicide rate is completely unconnected with gun laws:
Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws

The 10 highest states being:
Arkansas
Maryland
Tennessee
Missouri
Michigan
South Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
D.C.
If you want to curb 'gun deaths' but allow death in general to continue then sure, gun control is the way to go. That is utterly pointless IMO though. I prefer that we concentrate on stopping homicides more than worrying about what people kill with.

Really? You're going to post a link to an editorial and remark on semantics as your opening salvo in a discussion begun with observations and my own remarks pertaining to them and then questions based entirely on the noted observations. I realize that's exactly what I'll get from a lot of folks for whom I've come to hold in far less regard than you. I certainly expected better from you.

What the editorial states is rather meaningless to me to be honest. I used it because it conveniently outlined the states with the highest homicide rates - rates that are unconnected with weapon ownership.

That is the point that I made. It is not an argument in semantics. It is an argument that strikes right at the heart of the matter. You bring statistics on 'gun deaths' and I am rightly pointing out that such is nothing but manipulation of the data to ignore all other sources of death. If people kill with knives more often when you restrict guns then you have accomplished absolutely nothing. Look at the raw data rather than filtered by implement.

Okay...I'll look at it again later today.

I have looked at the tables in the article to which you linked. I scanned through the text of the editorial to find content pertaining specifically to nature and timing of the data, mainly because it makes the same statements as do the data I provided -- highest and lowest rates of gun deaths (homicides) by state -- and it identifies different results. The data in those tables is from 2012-2013. Look at the data I provided. It's from 2014. I have not compiled the data pertaining to gun ownership rates and so on for 2012-2013, so I don't know if the same apparent correlations exist for that year.

The newest data I can find off a cursory search is from 2013. FBI table 4 shows a breakdown of homicide and violent crime rates by state:
Table 4

Your data BTW uses data from 2013 and combines it with data from 2014. The population used is from 2013 combined with gun rates collected in 2014.
rate state Gun rate By Gun Rate
15.9 District of Columbia 66.4 #2
10.8 Louisiana 15.1 #10
7.2 Alabama 20 #7
6.5 Mississippi 6.8 #42
6.4 Michigan 4.3 #48
6.4 Maryland 15 #11
6.2 South Carolina 11.6 #21
6.1 Missouri 8.5 #38
6.0 New Mexico 40.5 #4
5.8 Nevada 19.5 #8

And because Wyoming had such a MASSIVE gun rate:
2.9 Wyoming 195.7 #1

It is worth noting at this juncture that the violent crime statistics are very close to this. All but one state in the top 10 homicide rate is located within the top 15 violent crime states.

The numbers are all over the place. To correlate a gun rate ownership and homicides (or even violent crime) is just not there IMHO.

I realize that the content I provided in my OP does not show causality. It clearly shows that some sort of correlation exists. I also agree with the editorial's writer that "correlation... between just two variables doesn’t show causation. Similarly, it doesn't show the absence of causality.

Well, no I don’t think it clearly does any such thing. The gun ownership rate does not seem to have any real correlation with the homicide rate.

I also think the cause of gun deaths is a function of multiple things, gun laws and gun ownership being among them, and I think that basing policy (or one's argument) on just one factor is inappropriate/illogical when there are clearly multiple ones playing into the matter. The factors that play into gun death rates, to my reasoning, the causal factors fall into a group of broad categories, including but not necessarily limited to:

• Rates of gun ownership
• Gun laws governing access to guns (this includes both ease of access as well as mere access)
• Gun laws governing the use of guns
• The sanity of individuals who possess a gun(s)
• The responsibility of individuals who possess a gun(s)
• A gun possessor's skill using their firearm(s)
• A gun possessor's safety in storing or transporting their firearm(s)

Based on what I've read and observed, were I a mathematician, I'd say that the equation that describes gun deaths as a function of those things is (1) absolutely not linear and (2) consists of coefficients or other components that place greater weight on one or more of those factors than on others.

Well, yes there are going to be more factors that one simple factor but I don’t think that means there cannot be a conversation on this factor alone or that if it were a real player in homicides that we would not be able to clearly see a correlation.

Considering the various factors in play, one must ask oneself:

• Which factor(s) does one have some ability, in the abstract, to control?
  • For those factors over which one has no control, what can one do to minimize their role in causing N-more gun deaths?
• To move from the abstract to implementation, what obstacles must be overcome?
  • What is necessary to overcome them?
• If one overcomes them, what are the foreseeable consequences of doing so?
  • Do any of those consequences need to be mitigated in order for the net impact of having overcome them to remain positive?
    • If "yes," what are the mitigating actions will counter the negative impacts of the policy and also not dull the efficacy of the policies implemented to curb gun deaths?

Now, obviously, at least for now, I think it shows a dereliction of one's duty as a political leader to not address each of the factors to greatest extent possible. I think it is a near complete disregard for "the general welfare" (as opposed to one's own and specific welfare) for citizens to oppose implementing policies that address each of the factors to the fullest extent possible. The extent to which any one of the factors involved is or will be more or less effective at stemming the rate of gun deaths isn't a relevant point because the goal isn't to find the single or two most effective means of doing so; the goal is to reduce gun deaths, presumably by the fullest extent possible. If one factor were to effect ten fewer deaths and another 50, then combined we realize 60 fewer deaths and that's better than 50 fewer, and meaningfully so, not because it's ten fewer deaths, but because we have yet to master resurrection.

Again, I take issue with your stated goal: ‘to reduce gun deaths. Of course reducing firearms reduces gun deaths. My point is that it does not reduce DEATH in general.


Edit: my table did not format at all. Hopefully you can still read it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Edit: my table did not format at all. Hopefully you can still read it.

NP...I'm sure I can parse my way through it. TY for letting me know that's what was going on. I wondered what the #-signs were "all about." I get it now.

 

[D Truth]

"gun deaths" Is an irreverent term used to manipulate data.

The actual homicide rate is completely unconnected with gun laws:
Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws

The 10 highest states being:
Arkansas
Maryland
Tennessee
Missouri
Michigan
South Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
D.C.
If you want to curb 'gun deaths' but allow death in general to continue then sure, gun control is the way to go. That is utterly pointless IMO though. I prefer that we concentrate on stopping homicides more than worrying about what people kill with.

Well said senpai.

I would like to add...
The "anti gun" nutters clearly do not care about death rates, what they care about is self defense. You see, they don't like the idea of humans defending themselves, this simply goes against their religion. Don't you understand? To their religion, you are supposed to be mindless cattle, happy to die to their whims.