I posted this as a reply to a "people freak about lettuce but not guns" post. Z0idberg_MD gave a reply that I haven't posted back to because I felt getting other opinions was better than hijacking someone elses post with this. The following is my original post as well as the reply from Z0idberg_MD which I will follow up with my reply. I am adding it all for context and for quoting purposes. Sorry in advance for the long post.

An estimated 600,920 people were killed by cancer last year. 155,870 (highest of one type) from Lung & Bronchus. Mostly related to Cigarettes which are said to account for 480,000 deaths 41,000 from second hand smoke. Cigarettes can be bought everywhere and are easy to get without ID.
15,548 deaths in 2017 from guns when excluding suicide (~39,000-40,000 with them) Guns really aren’t as easy to get hands on as people seem to think.
Any deaths are a bad thing and the sooner we address the actual issues the better or the problems will never be solved.
I have used guns since I was 5 and the only things, I have killed are animals I was going to eat or animals attacking the cattle on the family ranch. People rip on the AR-15 saying nobody needs a gun like that but I am inclined to disagree. When you deal with things like coyote you need something capable. The .22 can hold more ammo but doesn't have the range to kill coyote from across two 40-acre plots of land (the ranch is divided up in 40s for grazing and baling purposes) my 410 is good for small animals (squirrel, rabbit, moles, etc.) My .243 has the range and power but is bolt action and only holds 5 rounds and I can use a Bow quicker than I can the bolt. The AR-15 is semi-auto and can get the distance so when dealing with a pack of coyote with 7 of them trying to attack cattle you don't have to stop to reload or try to get closer.
Every gun I have bought I have had to wait a week for a background check. Sure, I can go to a gun show instead of a store but the show's a lot of time will also make you wait for the base background check to be run before you can get a gun. They also tag the guns going in and out. (Not to the owner just noting what guns are bought. I know it isn't necessarily a security thing but like cameras all around watching you, it is a deterrent) People looking for illegal guns don't go to these places.
There is the argument that Chicago only has an issue because you can just go the next state over and get a gun but those states also have the same federally mandated background checks. The guns in Chicago more often than not are either illegal or stolen (making them illegal) from a legal owner. Those shooters aren't crossing state lines to purchase legally.
The other argument is that people should lock up their guns in a safe. A gun is useless for defense if you can't access it easily. You can be safe without putting it behind a 12-inch-thick metal door. I have two kids but I teach them not to touch the guns without me and how to properly use a gun. My guns are not in a safe and do not have trigger locks. They are in an area accessible to me and the ammo is easily gotten even though it is not beside the guns. I am teaching my children exactly like I was taught and my dad was taught as well as his dad and grandpa. None of our guns have killed anyone.
A lot of the stigma, I fell, around guns is the fact that in larger cities people don't tend to do things like hunt so they also don't learn to use a gun and see no reason in having one. In the rural areas it is different. I understand the arguments posed but at the same time if you take guns away from people that doesn't make shootings not happen. Even then if the gun crime decreases a different form will increase. (Crossbow, bow, knife, cattle prod, machete, bombs) Hell my wife is more likely to grab a knife or sword to kill someone than a gun.
When my cousin was in school he used to go raccoon hunting before school started and he would bring his gun and dead raccoons to school prop his gun by the classroom door and tie the raccoons to his desk. This was just in the 60s. The issues facing these things today spur some from the stigma but also from the lack of discipline. My cousin could take his gun because had he ever tried to use it there were multiple other boys that would stop him but also the teacher would have beat him into the next week. Look at schools now and how teachers are scared of students or how students will beat the shit out of each other with the teacher just saying "stop please, I am calling the police" which then puts kids into the system because the teachers instead of disciplining are just having kids arrested.
We avoid topics like mental health or PTSD while also trying to punish bullies (with cops again) Punishing the bully doesn't fix the mental damage suffered and it also doesn’t address the issues plaguing the bully. Communities don't work together to stop things they just call the police and hope it gets fixed. The more these things happen the more they try to push it on the police. Laws get altered that give the police more control of the punishing aspects and then when a child is in the system they yell and scream about injustice. Parents don't want to parent though.
I know an Officer in my city that got a call to deal with a kid. He got to the house and the Mom told the Officer "He won't obey, he just back talk’s me and refuses to listen. I have told him 10 times to clean his room and he refuses"
The Officer talked to the kid found he was a little rebellious but mostly because his parents had recently split up and his dad had always been the one to punish if the boy didn't listen. He told the kid to straighten up and act as if his dad were there and think how he would be punished if he acted out against his mom with him there.
He left and a few hours later got called back with the Mom complaining about the same thing. She said "did you even do anything last time you were here?" He asked what he was supposed to do to which she replied "Punish him somehow. Make him understand he can't talk to adults like that."
The Officer proceeded to take off his belt and fold it in his hands, as he walked toward the kid the Mom flipped out and screamed at him "OMG! WHAT ARE YOU DOING???"
He said "Punishing him like you asked"
She said "I didn't mean beat him"
He replied with "I was only going to give him a whooping. What were you expecting me to do?"
The mom who had been so angry at her son said "I figured you would arrest him or something"
The Officer said "For what? Disobedience? Back talking? My Mom would have slapped me across the room for acting like that. I am not giving your child a record for back talking."
The Mom snipped back saying "I don't mean actually arrest him. I meant just arrest him and take him to jail to scare him"
The Officer was furious. Explained that the cops were not their to supplement when parents don't want to be mean. He gave her a warning for improper use of 911 services. (not sure if that’s possible but he was probably just trying to beat it into her)
This is the type of thing I mean when I say it is discipline.
I don't want people to die any more than the rest of the civilized sane people in this country but playing the this kills x but this kills y game is stupid. The number one cause of death isn’t the cigarettes or the guns (or lettuce) it is the people behind those things. The cigarette can't light itself and the gun can't fire itself (The lettuce can grow itself but it can't clean and test itself) they need people and until the human problem is fixed all of these arguments about buying guns or the like are 100% moot. If we aren't willing to help those in need mentally or even physically and we keep acting like a gun is anything more than a tool like a wrench, hammer, hatchet or chainsaw than these shootings and crimes will never stop. Maybe instead of arguing this politically just to get upvotes we should look at it medically and try to find a real solution.
If you don't like guns, fine. Nobody is forcing you to have one but don't act like you are morally superior just because you don't like them.
​

Reply from Z0idberg_MD
Who said morally superior? They make society less safe without a whole lot of demonstrable "good".
\ Correlation between suicide and firearm ownership rate*
[Conclusions. We found a strong relationship between state-level firearm ownership and firearm suicide rates among both genders, and a relationship between firearm ownership and suicides by any means among male, but not female, individuals] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984734/)
\ Permissive gun laws lead to more homicides*
[Conclusions. Shall-issue laws are associated with significantly higher rates of total, firearm-related, and handgun-related homicide.] (https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304057)
\ The largest gun study in history on more guns = more firearm homicide*
[Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/)

​
First and foremost, let me thank you for properly providing sources. Actual non-bias ones that are out to provide data not to specifically take a side.
I said morally superior. Strictly in context of the original post acting like pulling a dangerous lettuce that anyone could buy was equitable to buying a gun.
It's not.
#1. Personally, I ignore suicide in gun numbers in gun debates and I only added them for those interested. Suicide is a separate issue from homicide so putting them together in my view just skews numbers and distracts from one conversation such as this one about guns. Suicide can be viewed, that is fine, but only so long as it is viewed separate from gun violence as a whole. People who fully intend to commit suicide will do it regardless. I have no argument with the statement that having access to a gun while suicidal will raise the chance of one committing suicide. However, that also loops to my statements about mental instabilities and if we paid more attention to things such as PTSD and Depression than things might be different.
#2. In my opinion you shouldn't get a concealed permit without taking classes and it should 100% be up to a criminal background check to decide if you have one. Most the concealed classes around me are taught by active Police officers and the rest tend to be handled by retired ones.
Carrying a gun requires you to have some idea of responsibility but that is, unfortunately, not always how it works. That said limitations that are placed through recent legislation tend to be overly vague and are more harmful than they are good. Saying "People with mental illnesses shouldn't have access to guns" is well past overly vague. There are people that compete in the Special Olympics sport shooting competitions that would fall under that blanket law. “Mental illnesses” is a pretty vague term for law. When it comes to language in law, terminology is everything. With a law that simply states “mental illness” we would have to use something as a reference. Most likely the DSM-5 as it is the most comprehensive and as such all of these would fall under it:

1. Acute Stress Disorder
2. Adjustment Disorder
3. Adult Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
4. Agoraphobia
5. Alcohol/Substance Abuse
6. Alcohol/Substance Dependence
7. Alzheimer’s Disease
8. Anorexia Nervosa
9. Antisocial Personality Disorder
10. Anxiety Disorders
11. Attachment Disorder
12. Autism
13. Autism Spectrum Disorder
14. Avoidant Personality Disorder
15. Bereavement
16. Binge Eating Disorder
17. Bipolar Disorder
18. Body Dysmorphic Disorder
19. Borderline Personality Disorder
20. Brief Psychotic Disorder
21. Bulimia Nervosa
22. Circadian Rhythm Sleep-Wake Disorder
23. Conduct Disorder
24. Conversion Disorder
25. Cyclothymic Disorder
26. Delusional Disorder
27. Dependent Personality Disorder
28. Depersonalization Disorder
29. Depression
30. Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder
31. Disorder of Written Expression
32. Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder
33. Dissociative Amnesia
34. Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified
35. Dissociative Fugue
36. Dissociative Identity Disorder
37. Dyspareunia
38. Dysthymic Disorder
39. Encopresis
40. Enuresis
41. Erectile Disorder
42. Exhibitionistic Disorder
43. Expressive Language Disorder
44. Female & Male Orgasmic Disorders
45. Female Sexual Arousal Disorder
46. Fetishistic Disorder
47. Frotteuristic Disorder
48. Gaming Disorder
49. Gender Dysphoria
50. Generalized Anxiety Disorder
51. Histrionic Personality Disorder
52. Hoarding Disorder
53. Hypersomnolence
54. Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder
55. Hypochondriasis
56. Insomnia Disorder
57. Intermittent Explosive Disorder
58. Kleptomania
59. Major Neurocognitive Disorder
60. Mathematics Disorder
61. Mental Retardation
62. Minor Neurocognitive Disorder
63. Multiple Personality Disorder
64. Narcissistic Personality Disorder
65. Narcolepsy
66. New Specifiers of Bipolar Disorder and Depression
67. Nightmare Disorder
68. Non-Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Arousal Disorders
69. Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
70. Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder
71. Oppositional Defiant Disorder
72. Pain Disorder
73. Panic Attack
74. Panic Disorder
75. Paranoid Personality Disorder
76. Parkinson’s Disease
77. Pathological Gambling
78. Pedophilia
79. Phobias
80. Pica
81. Postpartum Depression
82. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
83. Premature Ejaculation
84. Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder
85. Pseudobulbar Affect
86. Psychotic Disorders
87. Pyromania
88. Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Behavior Disorder
89. Reactive Attachment Disorder
90. Reading Disorder
91. Restless Legs Syndrome
92. Rumination Disorder
93. Schizoaffective Disorder
94. Schizoid Personality Disorder
95. Schizophrenia
96. Schizophreniform Disorder
97. Schizotypal Personality Disorder
98. Seasonal Affective Disorder
99. Selective Mutism
100. Separation Anxiety Disorder
101. Sexual Masochism and Sadism
102. Shared Psychotic Disorder
103. Social Communication Disorder
104. Social Anxiety Phobia
105. Somatic Symptom Disorder
106. Stereotypic Movement Disorder
107. Stuttering
108. Tourette’s Disorder
109. Transient Tic Disorder
110. Transvestic Disorder
111. Trichotillomania
112. Vaginismus
113. Voyeuristic Disorder

I understand it is a hassle to name all the specific illnesses that shouldn't have a gun but if we just left it with mental illness many people who have never had any problems would lose access to them and it would eventually be thrown out in the Supreme Court. We could hope that if we used a blanket term it wouldn't be misused but in time it would eventually be that way. If only to stack charges. People with Depression and Schizophrenia would be obvious ones to prevent due to the nature of the disorder but what about Bipolar? Something easily controlled with medication. Would that be ok? Someone with ADHD, Tourette’s, Social Anxiety, Erectile Dysfunction or even Transgenders (Gender Dysphoria), should they be put under this blanketed ban of mental illness? Because history shows you that blanket laws are taken advantage of, a prime example is Civil Forfeiture laws.
I am not one of those people against all gun laws but I am against the “Common Sense” gun law statements and the fight to ban guns completely. Common Sense gun reform sounds good but people always take it off the deep end and then start attacking the second amendment. The only way to get rid of the second amendment would be to rewrite the constitution after a civil war or to rewrite it with the purpose of starting a civil war because the gun owners in this country would overwhelmingly oppose that option no matter what. For arguments sake though using the Huffington Post as an example of how crazy people can be when talking about this topic, this is the list from the article (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-j-blumenfeld/proposals-for-common-sens_b_8231786.html)
We must ban and criminalize the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weapons!
Automatic Weapons are highly restricted. To buy and sell you have to have a Federal Firearms License or they have to be registered gun made before 1986 (assuming they can even be owned in your state) You have to inform the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of your area that one is being purchased. A form has to be filled out with the ATF ($200 for tax, fingerprints, passport style photo, and information on the firearm are all part of this form) Then you have to wait up to a year for it to be approved. All of that is assuming you can afford one seeing as the bans on them have made them extremely expensive. (A standard AR-15 usually runs $800-$1000 brand new, A fully automatic made before 1986 will be $20,000-$35,000)
Saying Semi-automatic Weapons is about as bad as saying mental illness. Semi-Auto is defined as an automatic loading weapon that fires one bullet per trigger pull whereas Fully Auto is more than one bullet per trigger pull. So, by this writers’ definition we are left with bolt action (which people can fire at high rates very easily) and muzzleloaders. Pistol wise you are basically left with a derringer. There are derringers that shoot .410 shotgun shells and a muzzleloader can be a .32 all the way to a .58 caliber. All of which can do some damage and depending on the user can be reloaded faster than most people can get away. What works in favor of the Semi-Auto is that you don’t have to be as accurate with your aim.
We must close loopholes such as buying a weapon at a gun show!
Private sale between 2 private owners is an option when both are in the same state regardless of being at a gun show. Most dealers at gun shows are FFL gun dealers and they have to do a background check on you under the requirements. Not preforming one is against the law and they will lose their license as well as be charged with the unlawful sale of a firearm. Is this saying it isn't possible? No. Likely? Also no. If you crossed state lines and bought a gun the sale has to be processed by an FFL in your home state. FFLs aren't just selling to criminals and ne’er-do-wells. Gun Shows make it easier for FFLs to find buyers for the product they have in their stores. Believe it or not gun shops aren't multi-million-dollar cash machines sometimes change of venue gets your product sold.
We must ban the purchase of firearms and ammunition on the internet!
Again, to sell across state lines an FFL has to be involved even when purchasing online. The idea that you can just hop online and buy a gun like you were shopping on Amazon. Ammunition wise I am not really sure what that has to do with anything because you can always reload ammo so banning online sale won’t solve anything.
We must increase the waiting period and make background checks more rigorous and effective!
As I said in my last post, I have had to wait a week every gun I have bought. It isn't like the background checks are simple little papers that aren't actually looked at. If it is effectiveness you are wanting, the background check is only as good as the information reported on it just like a credit score. Make mental health record of certain types mandatory to report and all police records considered such as tickets for Jaywalking.
We must limit the number of firearms any individual can own!
Not really realistic but sure I will bite. Limit to what. Who decides this number? As in my first post all the guns I use have specific purposes. If I own 1 gun or 50 of them what difference would it make with the exception of there being 50 less guns on the streets to be used in a crime? I know it could be argued that everyone has the potential to commit a crime with a gun and that it is more likely dependent on the number of guns in one’s possession but this isn't a Tom Cruise movie and pre-crime isn't a thing. At that rate what is stopping us from limiting how many kitchen knives you have? You only really need one and as long as it cuts what’s the difference?
We must limit the number of bullets any firearm clip can hold!
I am not sure what limiting the number of bullets in a clip is going to do with the exception of making people insert bullets into their magazine slower. Clips are nice but I personally don’t use them. Having 2 smaller magazines for the AR-15 covers 20 rounds for me and I rarely if ever shoot enough to constitute being able to use a clip to quickly reload my magazines. Other people might have a need for this but even then, if you limited a clip to 5 bullets you are just telling me I need 2 clips to feed my magazines not 1. (I 100% understand that this writer was making the statement about magazines and not clips but this perfectly illustrates my point on why language used is important.)
We must ban and criminalize the purchase and possession of armor piercing bullets, and also hollow-tip bullets!
There is a lot to unpack here but I will keep it simple. Bullets kill regardless of the type and again with language saying Armor Piercing has wide connotations. True Armor Piercing rounds have a steel core instead of the standard soft lead and are designed to penetrate light armor.
While if you are talking about bullets that can penetrate things like Kevlar you are talking about anything larger than the standard .22. The AR-15 uses .223 ammo which in essence is a .22 bullet. The difference is that .223 is high velocity and the bullet tends to come to a point. It comes in a Round Nose (Used mostly in handgun ammo) and a Boat Tail (Used mostly in rifle ammo) The average owner will most likely have Full Metal Jacket ammo which sounds scary but for the most part it is a lead bullet with a copper coating on the outside it has nothing to do with Armor Piercing ability. If you shot a standard .22 round and a .223 the .22 would do more visual damage entry wise and would also more than likely not exit at all.
Hollow Point bullets are common for self-defense and also used by police because unlike FMJ they have stopping power on impact. As they hit, they expand and take up more area meaning they are less likely to do damage outside of the impact zone. They are safer to use for self-defense because you will be able to stop your attacker without having to worry as much about bystanders These bullets aren't made for long range shooting.
Banning and criminalizing two types of bullet is pointless unless you are doing it to all ammo. The writer misses Open Tip, Soft Point and Ballistic Tip ammunition as well as Shotgun shells which have Birdshot, buckshot and Slugs (A typical 12 Gauge slug is .73 caliber) Which in the right hands can be just as dangerous as a typical rifle.
We must rethink the “logic” of permitting concealed weapons, especially in places like houses of worship, colleges, bars, restaurants, and political rallies!
Yes, we should. Many shootings happen in gun free zones Reason being that the person wanting to do maximum damage will go where they are less likely to receive resistance. The Gun-Free Zone is implemented with good intentions but that also paves the road to hell. It is a matter of criminals are criminals because they don’t follow the law. No mass shooter has seen a “Gun-Free Zone” sign and though ‘Well shit, there goes that idea’
We must interface all data bases monitoring firearm ownership to assess the firearm-owning population more accurately and effectively!
As mentioned above, criminals are criminals because they don’t follow the law. This would be fought as an invasion of privacy almost immediately and wouldn't contribute to anything more than tracking law abiding citizens and their gun ownership. Do you think the criminals are letting the government know the use and sale of their guns? Yes, this writer is stating that we pull all the databases we already have together but he is also implying that it should be easily accessible for research which, as said, is an invasion of privacy.
It isn't to say that I disagree with gun laws entirely it is just stating that there is more to the issue than simply banning things that are used by mass shooters. Someone wanting to deal damage will figure out a way. If we are banning like the article suggest we are left with Shotguns, Derringers, Bolt action rifles and Cannons. It also ignores Swords, Knives, Chainsaws, Sledge Hammers, Flamethrowers, RPGs, Tanks, Bows and Crossbows, 3D Printed weapons, Lawnmower blades, Planks of Wood with Nails in them, Baseball bats with barb wire and Potato Guns just to name a few. It also doesn't account for bombs or chemical weapons made with household products such as Ammonia and Bleach or Bleach and Alcohol. All in all, the weapon of choice isn't the problem as none of them can act independently. Humans will always find a way to be the biggest assholes they can be should the need, in their mind, arise.
Looking at recent mass shootings, how many could have been avoided had people been less selfish and paid attention to the signs pointing to problematic mental health issues? How many could have been avoided if we just taught parents to be parents instead of letting them rely on the government to be the babysitter. I agree that not all people need guns but proper education would help too. Instead we yell and scream that guns are bad and kill people so we should remove them from the hands of the public. I would love to see the study supporting the idea that guns kill people.
#3. EXTREMELY interesting study. It is almost too smart for its own good though. More guns = more firearm homicide. What is wrong with that statement? More knives = more knife homicides. More car bombs = more blown up cars. The study had the proper idea but they implemented it wrong merely in the way we can break down their study and say something as vague as more guns = more firearm homicide.
Going back to my original post I covered this slightly. In rural America you have many towns where the firearm to citizen ratio is 1:1 or higher. Even taking states you have places like Wyoming where the registered guns to citizens is ~230:1. Whereas larger population states like California and New York are ~9:1 and ~4:1 respectively. (Oddly enough referring back to the Automatic weapon point the Top 5 states with Machine guns: 1. Connecticut - 52,965, 2. Texas – 36,534, 3. Florida – 36,194, 4. Virginia – 34,074, 5. Illinois 33,646. Though, California is really close to the Top 5 at #7 – 29,047.) (https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/#_ftn1%20)
The top 5 most dangerous cities (According to Forbes) and their state rank of registered gun owners are:
​

City Rank	State Rank
1 Detroit, MI	45. Michigan - 6.59:1
2 St. Louis, MO	36. Missouri - 11.94:1
3. Oakland, CA	44. California - 8.71:1
4. Memphis, TN	33. Tennessee - 14.76:1
5. Birmingham AL.	6. Alabama - 33.15:1

​
The study you reference while giving very helpful and valid data wasn't quite as valid as it could have been. The information is definitely there to produce solid evidence should you combine the data with other studies. I don’t see it as one sided but I do think they failed to include information that might have changed the data.
​