The statement in question was, "gun violence is an inevitable part of there being guns in the society."
Joe, why don't you tell us, using your superior intellect and ability to understand the difference between the true and the false, exactly what's wrong with that statement.
This is the one you quoted Linoge about. There's something in that statement that requires "proof." Is that what you're saying?
First lets take a look at "gun violence". All those poor disadvantaged guns growing up on the wrong side of the tracks. Poor Austrian immigrants who have no particular skill other than reliability and willingness to take abuse. They stay up night after night waiting for work until finally they snap, loading themselves and looking to cause trouble. They go out and pull their own trigger, firing at random as the last gasp of their attempt to make sense of a cruel and senseless world. Hat tip to Karl for his essay that I copied from shamelessly here.
Oh wait, maybe this isn't an honest answer to a loaded question. Because there is no such thing as "gun violence" any more than there is such a thing as "steam engine violence" or "microprocessor violence".
There is only violence. And most people think they understand violence but haven't looked deeply enough to understand that not all "harsh acts" are "violent".
Cain slew Abel. Notice what is NOT in that sentence, any sort of noun other than the murderer and the victim. It does not read, "The club forced itself into Cain's hand and swung itself to clobber Abel upside the head." The "deodand" concept has no place in a logical society. Sure random things happen such as volcanic eruptions, mudslides, and earthquakes that kill hundreds and sometimes thousands of people, but no one talks about "mother natures violence is a consequence of having mother nature in society."
Violence is a uniquely human trait because of malice. We ascribe violence to animals when in fact they have no malice, this is an anthropomorphism that has unfortunately taken root in our society (I blame Disney). A lion has to eat and as an obligate carnivore there his hunting is merely survival. Can you tell the difference between a mugging victim and someone who just had rhinoplasty? Very often they will look the same, and quite often feel the same. So why do we call a mugger "violent" and not the doctor who performs such an unneeded surgery?
Because of motive. We assign a malice to the mugger and benevolence to the doctor. Even though the untrained eye can't tell the difference between the work of a mugger and a doctor. In nature all animals have a "pure" motive for "violence". Hunger or survival. The law of the jungle. Kill to eat or to keep from being eaten. There is no malice.
And guns are incapable of malice. Malice is a uniquely human trait. And malice is what makes violence scary.
So there is no "gun violence". There is ONLY "human violence". MikeB is just a fool who is afraid to see that getting rid of guns won't get rid of "violence".