Hello, I'm a little late. But, welcome-

A lot of people don't understand what a right is - or that guns are a right and not some privilege. There isn't a single right more scrutinized and subject to restriction than guns. You apply the level of scrutiny and bureaucracy to any other right and people would burn cities to the ground. There is a lot of (and for good reason) talk about reducing gun violence in America. Unfortunately those who initiate such conversation are ignorant and biased. For starters it is assumed as fact that the presence of guns is a net negative (in other words do more harm than good) in American society. There are a lot of things wrong with what gun control proponents will lump in with "gun violence" or "gun deaths". Even defensive death by gun (for example a woman who shoots a disgruntled ex hell bent on harming her) would be lumped in the same statistic as a lunatic shooting up a mall - the commonality being the cause of death was a gunshot wound (or related to it). This is misleading as it equates things that are remarkably different. The statistics that gun control proponents value most are very misleading and there are some very silly concessions made in doing so. First gun control proponents highly value per capita basis statistics for murder rate. While it is certainly a worthwhile metric it should be one of many metrics used to paint a full picture. Many jurisdictions that have a high gun crime rate are also very population dense. The pure population density of these areas masks the seriousness of the problem in these select areas. Yes this is me making the "Chicago" argument. Most of the areas that have the highest occurrences of gun death / crime are those with the most stringent gun controls. This is how people can claim that "Chicago really isn't that bad" and that the "red states" have the higher rates. People often complain when Chicago is brought up that the guns are legally bought in Indiana and then just transported over state lines but those violate Chicago's laws. Furthermore if it really is the presence and access of these guns that is the problem why isn't Indiana a murderous hotbed like Chicago? It just logically doesn't add up that there are more occurrences of gun crime in gun restricted areas compared to less restricted areas. While I have no hard data on this handy I would imagine with the fervor of the gun control crowd if there was clear data that the problem with guns is in areas with lax gun laws we would be constantly bombarded with them but we aren't. People often do not dissect what gets lumped together in certain statistics such as a "gun death". To an anti-gunner any death by a gun is equivalent. I find this really lazy intellectually and shows a lack of desire to really understand the issue. If the desire is truly to curb gun *violence* shouldn't data be compiled that is purely that of gun violence and not other things. In other words many other things get lumped into a "gun violence" metric that are hardly violent at all. While suicide is a death by a gun (the ones that use a gun of course) I see suicide as a different matter and discussion and isn't equivalent to things like assault or other harm associated with gun violence. Suicide is a totally different discussion in my book and has a different set of questions and answers than other "truer" gun violence. This is one of the biggest reasons gun violence looks a lot more like a problem than it really is. About two thirds of gun deaths annually are suicide meaning that in annual metrics true gun violence (the thing we are supposed to be working on stopping) is already overstated by a wide margin. Part of the problem is that no side on this debate views the same information as (equally) important. For an anti-gunner any death is equivalent and the circumstances around the death are irrelevant. This in turn lumps a lot of different issues into one umbrella and makes problem solving damn near impossible. I don't see any widely discussed issue where there is a fervent misunderstanding on one side of the debate about the entire other side of the debate. Anti-gunners (anybody pro gun control whether in a limited or heavy capacity) don't understand pro gun people at all - they don't understand Our nations history with guns Why it is arguably our most valuable and cherished *RIGHT* Why we cherish guns Why we don't like the idea of the government being the deciding factor in exercise of our right Anything about the function or operation of a firearm The idea that guns can have positive and life saving functions That guns are (viewed as) a tool - and what functions that tool serves The worldview and thought processes of those who are pro gun There is probably more than that but off the top of my head that is what I've got. In order for us to come together the gun control crowd has to actually want to learn about what they are so fervently pushing. Since it is our RIGHT the burden of proof is on the gun control crowd - plain and simple.