Okay, but saying gun control is not the solution to said issues is still admitting there are issues, which i believe is a good thing.
No. Acknowledging that there are "issues" is not "admitting" anything. There
are issues. Just not
gun issues. There are social issues (out of scope here), educational issues (out of scope here), political issues (out of scope here) . . . I see a pattern.
The issues in question are out of scope in discussions of firearms,
except to the degree that control freaks want to use mislabeling to deprive gun owners of their rights. Depriving gun owners of their rights
IS in scope here. Dealing with the misinformation from the control freaks
IS in scope here.
Attempting to frame such a discussion as pertinent to a straw man like "gun violence" (or "gun related violence" if one prefers) is an exercise in misdirection.
Another argument could be that yes, gun control could possibly reduce gun related crimes and deaths but the cost to liberties, not just the 2nd amendment, of such implementation would not be worth the price.
The relationship of guns to crime has been studied, re-studied, and subjected to all manner of interpretations and distortions. Honest review of the stats makes it clear that gun control does not, per se, reduce violence. It does, however provide opportunities for thuggery and tyranny.
My point is these are valid discussions that could possibly sway people. Semantics is not.
And yet "semantics" is one of the weapons used against gun owners to commit distortions and disinformation to frame regulation and legislation to deprive them of their rights.
While I appreciate your
concern for the sensibilities our perception in the eyes of those who would disarm us, perhaps instead of encouraging us to conform to
their standards of civility, discussion, and articulation, it would be more productive to educate
them in the proper framing, context, and realities of firearms ownership and responsible use.
Now
that's a real issue whose discussion I'd like to see.