Counter? I hardly knew 'er. (Questioning a current theme)

Anyone else interested in the Big Picture, where addressing violence is concerned?

The momentum to curb violence in our nation built after recent mass shootings, with the Media busy, as usual, taking its opportunity to spin the discussion in directions that preempt rational consideration in order to polarize (and divide) the People. Whether they frame a position as absurd to make it less popular, attack the individual rather than the argument, or claim a topic is sacred to avoid its exploration - the Media are equipped with tactics the Public fails to recognize. 

I thought it important to fact-check what our elected representatives and (failed) Fourth Estate, have asserted lately and to counter a few points so prevalent in our current gun control debate. Here are a few fallacies used in the discussion on gun violence.  

...and a little Background...

This article analyzes mass shootings in American as far back as the 1930s and presents interesting bases for relevant discussion:

"The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.
Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.
So, given that far less people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?"

As well, it is extremely important to understand that observable studies show that greater gun ownership is inversely related with higher levels of violent crime. The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy presented an analysis concluding that:

."...The burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world." - Kates & Mauser

 With that said, let's explore the possible actions the executive is looking to take.

The Road Show

So that thing about "yielding to life" I mentioned in my last post... well, let's just call it a well-timed lesson learned.

The sandstorm that came through in my last post was stronger than I thought. As soon as I'd picked up my shovel to set down roots, the winds changed and picked me up instead. I closed my eyes to this...

 

...and opened them up to this:

 Oz, minus the shorties.