Discuss Homicide Intelligently

To the Editor: 
Recently, a man wrote a letter to the editor saying that he had used guns all his 70-plus years, basically suggesting that guns are not the problem with homicides and that he feels safer with handguns (even with admittedly poor eyesight!).
Then, a letter writer pointed out that in the 19th century (no specification as to which of the 100 years), there were very few homicides (assuming that good data was kept).
Both were right, but both only provided a partial view of homicides in this country. What we need is a much broader view, otherwise, the discussion boils down to what we have today: pro- and anti-gun control.
Homicides are pretty much cultural. Some cultures/countries have a lot and others not so much. Furthermore, in this country, we have subcultures of homicides.
Is gender an issue, and the connection between subculture and gender? Of course, it is.
Is age an issue? Certainly.
Is violent media part of it? Surely, and just as surely, it can’t be proven, simply because scientific studies aren’t designed to capture those outlying elements.
Are violent video games part of the problem? Just as clearly yes.
Do guns play a major role? There is no question but that they do.
The great bulk of homicides are by gun. In the absence of guns, American’s will still manage to kill others, but not nearly as often.
In the absence of guns, will people commit suicide as often? Almost certainly yes, if the records in other countries are correct. So let’s leave suicides out of the discussion for the time being.
Homicides are only part of the gun picture. Being shot, but not killed, is painful, damaging to the psyche and the economy, and the number shot far exceeds those killed by guns, so the entire toll is vastly higher than what the headlines screaming about homicide would suggest.
There are so many components to this problem that it makes the head spin, but spun heads is what we need if we are actually serious about doing something about it; spun heads and realism.
Let’s start our heads spinning with this: we have no idea what the “founders” meant by the Second Amendment. There was no police or army at the time, and there were at least partially hostile Indians pretty much everywhere on the edges of all the states, hence, police and military are partly what the “founders” were suggesting when they spoke of a need for a “militia.” Now, we have that militia, but it’s a professional, not civilian militia.
Also, part of the meaning of any word is its denotation, and the denotation of “arm” at that time was a black-powder muzzleloader. There were no repeating rifles then, so they had to be reloaded manually after each shot; ditto with pistols.
That’s what they “meant” by “arms,” so let’s drop all the arguing over the meaning of the Second Amendment “rights,” and instead talk about real social needs. Let’s admit that no citizen needs anything that can fire more than five shots without reloading, while we admit that most guns or owners never kill anyone.
Let’s not allow adventitious issues cloud the discussion, so let’s be frank. Most homicides are committed by African Americans who shoot other African Americans. Furthermore, they are usually males and relatively young males at that. That is not racist, sexist, or ageist, it’s just a fact.
Let’s not choose sides, but have a free and open discussion. With facts being our guide and everything on the table, let’s start addressing all the issues that will make us a safer, more comfortable society for everyone.