This isn’t me trying again, this is me refuting your position…
You're pointing to total gun violence numbers in the U.S. without any context.
I suppose I could have picked a chart that shows gun deaths per 100,000 citizens, that makes us look better but not by much. I’m aware that we have a larger population than most of the countries mentioned but by ratio, we still have an unconscionable amount of gun violence in this country. 1. The majority of U.S. gun deaths are suicides, not homicides. In 2022, suicides made up roughly 54% of gun deaths. That’s a mental health issue, not a gun ownership issue. Subtract the suicides and we still have an unacceptable high rate of gun violence
2. Most homicides occur in a handful of cities with strict gun laws already in place, Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, areas plagued by gang violence and illegal firearms, not legal gun ownership. Perhaps the violence is concentrated in a handful of cities, it’s still gun violence that the average citizen is subjected to. 3. Legal gun ownership and violent crime don’t correlate. Switzerland, as I mentioned, has high legal gun ownership and one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Same with Finland and the Czech Republic. I didn’t differentiate the violence between legal and illegal gun ownership so I’m not certain how your response #3 affects that, or if it really matters. Our legislators, particularly here in the south have persistently pushed to make gun ownership and open carry more accessible. As an example, the age to purchase a gun in Florida was recently reduced from 21 to 18. They’re not old enough to drink alcohol legally but they are old enough to legal purchase a gun. Moreover, if it’s not the guns why is there such a lack of action in trying to figure out what is actually causing the violence.Bottom line,
At its core, I acknowledge that correlation doesn't always imply causation. I also recognize that both our data sets carry a degree of selectivity. Still, I remain firmly convinced that gun violence is a profound and pressing issue. Basic logic suggests that fewer guns in circulation would likely lead to fewer instances of lethal violence. Yet far too many cling to the familiar refrain: "Guns don’t kill people, people kill people." The truth is, if individuals inclined toward violence lacked such easy access to firearms, there would simply be fewer deaths. A clear illustration of this tragic dynamic can be seen in the alarming rise of road rage incidents — where minor traffic disputes escalate into fatal shootings.
Rich, I appreciate the tone of your response, but let’s unpack it with a bit more clarity. You begin by admitting your chart lacked context, and then pivot to ratios, gun deaths per 100,000, as if that alone proves your case. But even those ratios, when broken down, reveal something important: most of the violence is isolated to specific environments, not evenly spread across the entire population. That's why national averages are misleading. If violence were uniformly distributed, your point might hold. But it’s not and that matters.
“Most gun deaths are suicides.”
Exactly. That’s not a gun issue, that’s a mental health crisis. Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, despite strict gun control. Suicidal people, tragically, find a way. And yet you admit this... only to dismiss it and lump those numbers in anyway.
“It’s still gun violence the average citizen is subjected to.”
The “average” citizen? Hardly. Most gun violence happens in concentrated zones with long-standing socio-economic issues, rampant gang activity, and rampant illegal gun circulation. The rest of the nation isn’t living in a daily war zone, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
“I didn’t differentiate between legal and illegal gun ownership.”
That’s a problem. Because legal gun owners aren’t the ones causing this violence. When you push policy that restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens based on the actions of criminals, you’re targeting the wrong group.
“Our legislators are making guns more accessible.”
You’re suggesting that expanding lawful access is dangerous, but again, where is your evidence that legal carry leads to spikes in crime? It doesn’t. In fact, many areas with high concealed carry rates have lower rates of violent crime. Criminals aren’t lining up for background checks and permits. That’s the part your argument glosses over.
“Why is there a lack of action in figuring out the causes of violence?”
There isn’t. People have studied this extensively and the root causes are poverty, broken homes, drug trade, mental illness, and gang culture. You don’t fix that by taking a shotgun approach to disarm the entire population.
“Fewer guns would mean fewer deaths.”
That’s a hypothesis, not a certainty and history suggests otherwise. Countries with strict gun control still experience horrific violence. Look at knife crime in the UK. Or cartel violence in Mexico. The weapon isn’t the disease, it’s just the symptom. And road rage shootings? That’s not a reason to ban cars or guns. It’s a reason to address anger, impulse control, and the culture of zero accountability.
Bottom line: I’m not clinging to slogans. I’m pointing out that laws targeting legal gun owners don’t stop criminals they just shift power further into the hands of those already willing to break the law. You’re passionate about this topic, and I respect that, but passion doesn’t override reality. Guns are tools. The problem is the broken hands they're sometimes in not the millions of responsible ones you want to tie behind their backs.
at all times wherever you go? How about bullet-proof vest...etc etc.
