So it's clear that the firearms by themselves do not cause the crime, but are only the tools used.

Except for all the murders you just acknowledged were lower with gun control, because guns escalate arguments and crimes into homicides since there's no better tool for quickly and reliably killing someone.

What you're trying to do is "cure" pneumonia with a cough suppressant, and hoping that the underlying pneumonia goes away on it's own once you stop coughing

I sure hope you're not a doctor, because treating symptoms is exactly what they do until the underlying cause is discovered and addressed. If it can't be cured, managing symptoms is literally their entire focus.

Not in your hospital though. Turn up with a broken arm? "Sorry, pain is just a symptom so we can't give you anything for it. We also don't think the bone sticking out of your arm is the actual cause, so we're not going to address it until you've had 6 months of chemotherapy and undergone a colectomy because cancer can cause pain too. We're not actually going to perform those proceedures, but if someone else does, come back and see us so we can give you new excuses".

Even if you took all the guns in the US, you're not going to fix the violence, the gangs, the domestic abuse, the rape, or even the suicides.

No, it wont. It will reduce the lethality and frequency of every single one of those things instead -- an improvement you oppose.

And yeah, conservatives oppose fixing all that shit too. So, good on you for agreeing with Republicans on that, I guess?

You seem to be confused again. Name every single moral, effective change you can think of to reduce violence and crime and I'll openly support every one of them. Universal healthcare, addressing wealth inequality, improving education? No problem. You can even raise my taxes to help fund them.

Then when you're all out of ideas, I will say "Gun control is another moral, effective way to reduce the amount and severity of crime and violence" and you'll throw a fit about "not that one, we will kill you if you try and implement that one".

Your views on that one issue align perfectly with both Republicans and the gun-lobby that donates $16 million each year to them -- money you give them.

Which is not what I said, but okay.

It's literally the next argument you make.

How about, ALL of my trans friends, and the overwhelming majority of my gay friends are armed, because they've got people that will happily murder them in the streets with their base hands

But they don't use their bare hands, they use the guns you demand they are sold, significantly increasing the chances of your friends being killed.

How about the women I know that have had to get restraining orders against violent and abusive ex-husbands and boyfriends, and got armed and trained because cops do not give a fuck until his hands are around her neck?

Violent, abusive partners that you also demand are sold guns, despite domestic abuse being one of the strongest predictors of homicide.

How about the people threatened like my nephew that were threatened by a gang because he was a witness to a murder, and was compelled to testify in court?

What about him? 99% of guns used in crimes were either legally sold to the criminal, or sold to a "responsible gun owner" that failed to secure the weapons and promptly had them stolen.

The laws you're leaping to the defense of armed the murderer, the people who threatened him and from the sound of it, guns only made his life significantly worse.

I'm not even sure how you think you'd solve this in your gun utopia. If your nephew was a child at the time, they wouldn't be eligible to carry a handgun with them at all times. If they did have a gun, your expectation seems to be that he could have murdered the criminal back, which would have only made the trauma, threats and court appearances even worse.

If you didn't make all these people up, it's clear you're just using them as props. It's genuinely surreal that you could have at least 7 people in your life that you ostensibly love, all of whom have been the target of violence, yet you support their abusers and oppressors buying handguns and semi-automatic rifles.

America has a violence problem, period. It's not a gun problem, it's a violence problem.

Nobody advocating gun control thinks it will end all forms of violence, nor do they oppose other forms of violence reduction.

They oppose supplying violent people the tools they use to maximise their violence, with near-zero consideration of the risk that poses to innocent people.

They ask themselves "How many people would have died at Pulse nightclub if the killer only had a bolt-action? What about if he only had a knife? What about if we lost our minds and let the pro-gun community pick up a 6 pack of hand grenades like many of them openly support?".

But the pro-gun community doesn't. They just say "49 killed and 53 wounded is fine. 61 dead and 400 injured is fine. 21 children mutilated beyond recognition is fine. 3 women a day is fine", because none of those people matter as much to them as their guns do.

To rephrase that, why are you concerned only with affecting murder, rather than affecting ALL violent crime

Which violent crimes am I blocking reduction efforts for? I will support any moral and demonstably effective method of reducing violent crime of any sort. The current gun laws meet neither of those requirements.

So, why the focus on a single issue?

I'm focusing on a single issue because that's the issue we're discussing, not because it's the only one I support.

Why do people only drown at home when they have bathtubs, and not people that just have showers?

Because showers have a near zero drowning risk and bathtubs don't. Beaches and swimming pools have a higher drowning risk still, which is why we have systems in place to mitigate those dangers through lifeguards.

If you think this simple concept is "nonsensical", we've probably isolated why you think gun laws are perfect just the way they are -- you're completely unable to identify different risk levels, even when they're extremely obvious.

Defensive gun use only shows up when you ask gun owners because non-gun owners don't have guns to use defensively.

Which would have been a great point if I'd suffered a traumatic brain injury and actually asked "why don't people without guns use their guns defensively".

Defensive gun use must inherently prevent a crime and the pro-gun community has been completely unable to demonstrate this crime reduction statistically.

Only 8% of firearm researchers agreed that 'In the United States, guns are used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime

And, BTW, since you are familiar with DGU, you know that conservative estimates are around 1.5M per year in the US

Which is roughly the number of violent crimes reported in America each year. You'd think if 50% of all violent crimes were prevented by guns, that would be trivial to prove.

Instead, we end up with figures that say things like "only 3% of all mass shootings are ended by a good guy with a gun".

Of course, it's going to take you about a minute and a half to load if you've practiced, so maybe don't miss with that first shot? Oh, and you're going to want a spotter to help you aim, and you'll need to find a way to tow it around, since it weight a couple thousand pounds.

With a cannon that takes a crew of four people to operate effectively, and has a range less than a decent bolt action rifle? 'Kay.

Congratulations, you've accidentally realized that different weaponry comes with different risks to the public and that those risks are significantly reduced when weapons are less portable, lower range and have a lower rate of fire.

But of course, your little story about cannons doesn't actually represent your views on guns, otherwise you'd oppose handguns and semi-automatic weapons, aligning your opinions with the most widespread gun control laws across the globe.

You said "artillery". Should we go through different forms of artillery and you can either say "Yes, I support anyone who can pass a background check owning that with no training or safety requirements" or "actually it turns out I'm not an arms absolutist after all and some weaponry isn't worth the social risk"?

Gun control laws, sure. Since those are almost always intended to and disproportionately affect minority groups.

So now that those racist laws are gone, there's no more race problems right? All the Black Panthers are living happily ever after and definitely weren't executed by the state, guns or no guns.

Because it sure seems like your guns didn't fix shit for them.

Police still execute them in the street and if they had a gun on them, there isn't even an investigation. Hell, if they fired at the police, those police would probably get a medal for killing them.

But if you know the magic proceedure to follow to stop police brutality using cool guns, I'm all ears. You're a black man, you've been stopped by police, you have a legal firearm in your pants. When do you start blasting?

Be specific, because the lives of people you don't give a shit about are on the line.

Once you've sorted that, you can explain how selling guns to neo-nazis with a history of domestic violence helps them.

You missed Finland, which is likely more heavily armed than the Swiss

Here's their gun laws.

What a surprise, they require gun licenses which won't be granted for self-defense, guns that are not appropriate for their stated purpose or applicants with a history of mental health issues, violence or substance abuse.

All of that is gun control, which the pro-gun community opposes.

Fortunately, the people of Finland don't. So after a two school shootings using pistols, police were grilled about why the gun licenses were issued, then legislation was updated to require two years of active, documented hobby shooting before being issued a pistol license, as well as being over the age of 20.

So there's no good reason to believe that a Swiss person couldn't easily jump through the hoops to get an SIG 550 (or use their military-issued rifle, and the military-issued ammunition) to commit a mass murder

Crazy. It's almost like those "hoops" filter out mass murderers.

If the state subsidizes the cost of storage, sure, I'm fine with that.

Nah. You want to be a "responsible gun owner", so its time for you to take responsibility.

there's no country I'm aware of that requires firearms to be stored in a container that would be considered a burglary-resistant safe.

You shouldn't have any trouble finding countries that would revoke the gun license -- if not criminally charge -- anyone found keeping a handgun in a glovebox or sock drawer and an AR-15 in a closet.

Millions of Americans do, and it sounds like you're among them. It sure seems like "responsible gun owners" hate the thought of that responsibility being mandatory.

No one is arguing that people convicted of a domestic violence offense should be allowed to be armed

The pro-gun lobby are, and they're both funded by you and representing you.

Convicted is the key term here.

Did you tell all those "women you know" at the top of your comment that you still support their ex-partners owning firearm, even though they have a restraining order? Did they ever speak to you again? Because I certainly wouldn't if someone told me "I'd rather risk your murder than risk temporarily depriving an innocent person of an inanimate object".

I have already demonstrated that countries without any realistic path to gun ownership can still have very high violent crime rates, even if the murder rates are lower

Yes, you have demonstrated that countries with gun control have lower murder rates (which is exactly my point) despite still having other crime (which I never claimed gun control would eliminate).