I found the facts fascinating. That is why I sanctioned this when it first appeared.  It is cogent that both sides ignore data that contradicts their assumptions. We have had this discussion before, about why evidence does not matter.  People tend to endorse experts who agree with them, and denigrate the credentials of experts who do not.

Thanks Bill!

I sanctioned your post, Ross.  There is so much smoke and fire around this issue that the facts are obscurred.  You suggested that we ask, "...why some people, some areas, some condtions, lead to high levels of gun-related violence."

I understand that when you take suicide out of the equation, the number of gun deaths per year drops by 2/3rds.  When you remove the number of gun deaths that are inner-city gang related it drops considerably again. 

For whatever that remaining number of gun deaths is, it makes sense to pull out those who are severely psychotic.  It isn't that a gun death by one means is important and others aren't, but that we can see different causes... different answers to the question of why these people?  Why are people committing suicide?  Why do we have gang violence?  Why do we have untreated psychotics running around?

What is the number of gun deaths that is left?  (Assuming that accidental discharges are also subtracted.  That is related to a lack of training in safe firearm control and that lack of training might partially relate to the subject matter of guns being so volatile.)

I've long suspected (with absolutely no solid evidence) that freedom of choice imposes a stress on those with certain forms of low self-esteem and that this is a contributing factor.  In other words, some of the "Freedom is Messy" that you mentioned is that at least a small fraction of the population can't handle freedom and 'crack' in ways that result in violence.

Jules,

I don't think anyone disagrees with you. 

Ross started off saying, "...it's your right to own a gun, and that right not be subject to any restriction upon your ownership or purchase."  And I agree with that completely.

#When there's a hole in your net, you don't need a bigger net; you need a smaller hole.  - Mike Rowe

Consider the following:

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

"Every place that has banned guns has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland. [The accompanying link features some striking graphs illustrating the different crime rates before and after a ban on guns.]

"For an example of homicide rates before and after a ban, take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997 (source here see Table 1.01 and the column marked 'Offences currently recorded as homicide per million population'). After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996. The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates. The homicide rate only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004. Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate.

"As an aside, homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers 'exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise' (Report to Parliament). The problem isn’t just that it reduces the recorded homicide rate in England and Wales, but what would a similar reduction mean for the US." More at:

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/