> 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.
Sure, but that's shootings, not deaths. If you're going to broaden one end of the comparison, it's prudent to do the same for the other end.
> 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?
Well sure, zero is obviously ideal. My point, however, is that there are far bigger fish to fry - by, again, multiple orders of magnitude.