What is the source of the problem and how do we solve it?

Do we act on our own, and/or do we create more legislation?

If we add more legislation, what would it look like?

I question the use of the word “or” in this sentence. I question the nature of the argument that allows the use of the word “or” in a sentence like this.

Along the same lines … bla bla bla … just “being right.”

Sophistry. Please get back to the point.

But you are making the mistake that I lump all NRA members into “nutters.” I offered my definition of “nutters” above.

“An argument that treats a turf war between drug gangs the same as the family murder/suicide that triggered this is vulnerable on the grounds of fatal oversimplification.”

I agree. That’s why I asked Greg Laden to explain if he thought the problem was societal violence, or the ready availability of “cheap” firearms. So far, he hasn’t bothered.

Along the same lines of what I quoted just above, any argument that tries to equate all tools that can be / have been used to kill people is also vulnerable on the grounds of oversimplification. And anyone who continues to use such an argument after it has been pointed out to them that an automobile is not the same thing as a firearm shows they are not really interested in exchanging ideas, just “being right.”

The numbers don’t bear that out: in the USA, cars are four times better at killing people than guns are.

Show me the numbers: how many people have deliberately tried to kill people using their car? So not the number of car accidents, but the number of people who purposefully (drunk or not) aimed their car at someone (known to them or not) and hit the throttle.

Because that’s what we are talking about here: deliberate shootings, not accidental ones. Comparing deliberate shootings to accidental car crashes is simply not a fair comparison.

Of course, when only looking at deliberate run-overs and car crashes, we should also subtract the number of accidental gun fatalities from the total number of gun fatalities. My guess is that the ratio will be reduced to quite a bit less than 4:1.

Address the moderate gun owners. Those who do keep all of their firearms, ammo and support materials in gun vaults or gun safes, who have no issue recording transfer of firearms from one law-abiding citizen to another, and who believe that those who want to be law-abiding gun owners should demonstrate to legal authority that they at least understand the safe handling and use of firearms.

You seem to be distinguishing those you describe above from “nutters.” The problem is, the standard-issue NRA member fits the above on all points (at least as far as compliance goes; whether they’re happy about it is another matter.)

And yet …

There are any number of “they’re coming to take away my guns and I’m ready for them!” poster children among that same group. I don’t think you can separate them that readily.

I’m not trying to abrasively sharpen any woodcutting tools here, but I don’t see the whole situation as readily drawn in black and white. An argument that treats a turf war between drug gangs the same as the family murder/suicide that triggered this is vulnerable on the grounds of fatal oversimplification.

Focussing on your point 2: “2) I can’t propose anything specific until I know what problem we are trying to solve. I know the effects of the problems (thousands of people shot do death or maimed over alarmingly short periods of time, in an almost epidemic fashion localized to the US).”

To which I responded:
“2. That’s a fair take. So why not address it specifically? Are the high number of deaths that are related to gun violence caused by the prevalence of “cheap, only barely regulated and readily available firearms,” or is gun violence a sypmtom of a violent society? I figured you’d already answered that for yourself based on your introductory sentence.”

What I meant, which I did not make clear, it seems, is that you do have in your head what problem we are trying to solve: that of “cheap, only barely regulated and readily available firearms.” That is why I asked you how you thought the government should solve it, meaning, what more legislation we needed.

If, however, the problem is not “cheap, only barely regulated and readily available firearms,” and it is not a violence-prone point of view among most folks in our society, then what the heck is the problem that leads – through the action of gun violence – to all the deaths?

You’ve go me stumped.

Back to number 3 – If further legislation is not what is required to remove the illegally-owned firearms from the streets and dirt paths, then citizen action is what must be relied on. To garner citizen action to pursue and collect illegally-owned firearms, one is going to need the assistance of legal gun owners, especially those who trade in guns. To get their assistance, one needs to get on their good side and address the issues they bring up, which is what you pointed out, above.

I recommend that you don’t waste time on the nutters. You have no credibility with them, as they see you as an enemy, not just an altertaive point of view. You can tell who the nutters are, they are the ones who think other kinds of hand and power tools are equivalent to firearms in their applicability to how easily one person can kill many others.

Address the moderate gun owners. Those who do keep all of their firearms, ammo and support materials in gun vaults or gun safes, who have no issue recording transfer of firearms from one law-abiding citizen to another, and who believe that those who want to be law-abiding gun owners should demonstrate to legal authority that they at least understand the safe handling and use of firearms.

Bottom line: The comparison is stupid and as I say is sophistry. Using car deaths as an excuse to avoid doing something about the carnage is in insult.

DC, read back over what is being said, get hold of yourself, and take it down a notch. I’m telling you that conflation and confustion of utterly different issues is no longer acceptable in this argument. And you are disagreeing with me by disagreeing with me. Yet you fail to take your own advice!?!?!?

It is nothing like hyperbole to claim that a gun is a better killing machine than a knife or a car.

The numbers don’t bear that out: in the USA, cars are four times better at killing people than guns are.

The conflation of spoons, knives, cars, and guns is sophistry.

Again, the hyperbole isn’t helping your case.

You don’t help yourself rhetorically by cranking up the body count by orders of magnitude, nor by conflating machetes and napkin rings.

Understand me: I’m not addressing the merits of your position. In fact, I suspect its the fact that I’m inclined to agree with you in many ways that makes the Republicanesque distortions so aggravating.

The conflation of spoons, knives, cars, and guns is sophistry. When the revolution does come, we’ll be doing in the sophists first, using whatever available weaponry we have.