> Accidental discharge of gun is a frequent cause of death in the wild, wild united states of guns.
It actually ain't; it's only about 500 a year (out of about 200,000 total accidental deaths). To put that in perspective, falling and car accidents each account for about 40,000, and poisoning accounts for 80,000.
> It actually ain't; it's only about 500 a year (out of about 200,000 total accidental deaths).
Looks like more than 2300 accidental shootings in 2020 with 39000 roughly shootings in general. Of course with a positive trend line over the years prior, 2021 and 2022 should be even worse once the data comes out. If we compare this on a per capita basis with other developed nations, the US ranks number one in per capita gun deaths. 'USA USA USA. We're number one.' Oh wait, that's bad. 23X per capita deaths in the US more than Australia is bad. We can agree that more Americans died from other causes than guns, but does that make the gun deaths any less significant or more acceptable? I don't agree that we should accept this stat and reality as all well and good, especially as nearly every other developed country is doing better than us in regards to gun safety and gun deaths. Certainly more could be done to prevent gun casualties.
> Violence and suidice (with or without access to firearms) is a direct function of socioeconomic inequality.
You seem strangely allergic to gun control or gun safety. Other countries have simple, effective measures for gun safety and ownership which reduce shootings and gun deaths precipitously. Some of these measures can be implemented here with only slight modifications. Social inequality is not solved by more guns, nor should reducing social inequality by itself be considered a precondition for attempting to reduce gun deaths in the US.
> There are far bigger fish to fry - by, again, multiple orders of magnitude.
More than one social issue can addressed at a time. No person seriously says to the effect that we can't solve all of these murders until we've addressed affordable housing. Society can and does work on issues, plural, at once.
> You seem strangely allergic to gun control or gun safety
Because I consider self defense to be a basic and inalienable right, and consider any pretext for disarming the working class while said working class continues to face oppression to be unethical. Glad to hear that you trust police officers to even so much as not actively harm you (let alone actually protect you); if only everyone was so privileged.
> Other countries have simple, effective measures for gun safety and ownership which reduce shootings and gun deaths precipitously.
Other countries also have simple, effective (compared to the US) socioeconomic safety nets which reduce the motivation for all violence and suicides precipitously.
> Social inequality is not solved by more guns
Well it sure as hell ain't solved by leaving the working class even less able to defend itself against the very state driving social inequality.
> More than one social issue can addressed at a time
Indeed, and as I explained in the other comment thread you perused, by addressing socioeconomic inequality you address violence (including gun violence) for free - because, again, people don't kill themselves or each other for gits and shiggles.
That is:
> No person seriously says to the effect that we can't solve all of these murders until we've addressed affordable housing.
People who understand cause and effect absolutely do. Gun control is a distraction - a Band-Aid over a broken leg.
It actually ain't; it's only about 500 a year (out of about 200,000 total accidental deaths). To put that in perspective, falling and car accidents each account for about 40,000, and poisoning accounts for 80,000.