Require young people to undergo a background check to use sarcasm.

I mean, I guess? I think the actual difference between our opinions is that I'm suggesting we treat a symptom because there is no underlying cause. At least not in any actionable way. Rather, there are hundreds of them, and there's no single treatment. They have to be unpacked one at a time, and we have to start somewhere.

I have a suggestion on where to start. You agree, but also don't really, because you think there is a core issue here (lack of religion) and until that's addressed, everything else is just tinkering with symptoms and isn't an actual solution. Where we actually disagree, is I think it's ridiculous for anybody to assume there's a core underlying issue that causes violence, and that it's addressable. I think we have no choice but to treat the symptoms, because the core problem isn't as neat or simple as 'lack of religion.' I think the world is a complex, messy place, and is a fool"s errand to sit around waiting for the underlying issue to show itself.

The point I've been making, and one that I think is supported pretty compellingly by the actual data, is that the biggest single problem is guns themselves. As I've illustrated a couple of different ways, the crime rate's actually low. The reason the murder rate's high despite that is that we're drowning in guns, and guns turn run of the mill violent crime into murders.

Our violent crime rate's not drastically different than that of other countries -- Great Britain, comes to mind -- and yet, our murder rate's substantially higher. It's not a stretch to draw a line between the actual tools being used in said violent crimes, and how efficiently those tools kill.

To be clear, it's sort of too late. We can't really put the cat back in the bag given how many guns there are floating around, as I don't think there's a realistic political option that leads to a truly drastic reduction in gun ownership, so all of these suggestions are, unfortunately, just working to make things marginally more difficult. You're 100% right about that.

But I just want to be clear about something: that's kind of your fault. I don't mean that to be overly accusatory or anything, I'm just trying to make a point. The reason we're tinkering around the edges here is because a huge portion of folks in America -- almost all of them Conservative or Libertarian, are willing to blame gun violence on everything but guns. And you all are a substantial political coalition that is powerful enough to actually shift the conversation.

It's because of people like you that the national conversation on this doesn't accept the obvious: that lots of guns lead to lots of gun deaths. Instead, we have to try and unpack ridiculous notions like how the rise of atheism has impacted the murder rate before we can take any action.

The data makes a very compelling argument that guns are the problem. Americans don't seem to be driven to violence at a higher rate than in other Western countries, we just have a lot of guns, and guns are really good at killing people. It's not at all clear to me why this is a controversial point.

And yet, folks like you won't acknowledge that obvious point, and instead insist the 'disease' that needs to be treated is 'lack of morality.'

Which brings us back to the core of our discussion, namely the symptom vs. disease debate. The actual data shows a very clear correlation between guns and murder. But because there's a political coalition in our country that's powerful enough to ensure that banning guns, or even making any substantial changes around who can own guns, isn't a possibility. And without that possibility on the table, there's no way to treat the disease.

And ultimately, that's why it's really hard to see your argument here as anything but disingenuous. You're lecturing others for treating a symptom rather than the disease, while also contorting yourself in ridiculous ways to avoid acknowledging the obvious cause of the 'disease' as suggested by actual, hard data.

In other words: you're part of the reason we're in a position to only treat symptoms. A coalition you're a part of has taken the option of treating the disease off of the table.

Everything else we're discussing -- atheism, mental health, poverty, the alienating impact of the internet -- those are all symptoms. As I've said, there are hundreds of factors and it's basically impossible to unpack them all or even to really understand where one ends and another begins. But one thing that's super clear is that all of them -- whether it's lack of morality or lack of mental health care -- all end in the same place: with guns and death.

And until a majority of people on the right are willing to acknowledge that and actually do something about it, we're just gonna be tinkering around the margins. But in the meantime, the people who insist on ignoring the obvious issue here don't get to lecture others for "treating symptoms instead of the disease" or criticize the morality of others as being more concerned with 'political correctness' and 'climate change' than with murder.