That's literally the third sentence in the article, which also mentions the rise in suicide and fall in gun homicide rates two sentences below that. The title is dry and accurate.

> yet there is zero reason to conflate that with homicides involving a firearm.

The article doesn't conflate anything; it makes a very interesting and important comparison: vehicle deaths (which have been extensively studied for decades, with much federal regulation and other pressure to improve safety) are now on par with gun deaths (which had been banned from federal research for nearly two decades).

> It's amazing that we've improved vehicle safety in the last 60 years

Wouldn't it be nice if fewer people were dying from guns as well?

It would be nice if fewer people were dying from bullet wounds; that does not change the fact that this article's headline is misinforming.

Further, the data is misleading as well. Suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths are three different things.

On top of that, this data is collected across the US...meaning that it includes both areas where gun laws are loose, and areas where gun laws are strict. This means that the data tells us nothing about whether tougher laws would help or hurt the state of gun-related death, for reasons that should be obvious to anybody who's completed a high school science class.

> Suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths are three different things.

In terms of someone being killed by a gun, how so exactly?

Suicides are caused primarily by mental illness, and can be committed through many means other than firearms. Trying to stop suicides by removing firearms is a pointless endeavor, similar to trying to cure a cold by keeping the patient from coughing. Homicides are similar in that one can commit homicide by many means other than firearms, though firearms allow doing so from a much greater distance; however, again, the root cause is mental illness, and attacking firearms is a waste of effort compared to trying to fix the root cause. As for accidental deaths, they have nothing to do with suicides and homicides, and the solution there is to teach people how to not point the firearm at something they don't want to kill (among other safety rules, like not keeping the weapon loaded unless absolutely necessary).

> that does not change the fact that this article's headline is misinforming.

You haven't made any arguments in support of this claim.

> Further, the data is misleading as well. Suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths are three different things.

Yes, what is your point?

> This means that the data tells us nothing about whether tougher laws would help or hurt the state of gun-related death

Rates of gun ownership is tightly-correlated with rates of gun-related deaths, at whatever scale you cut it. This also holds true for gun suicides:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/spr08gunprevalence...

The article's title is phrased in such a way that it implies gun deaths have increased to meet vehicular deaths. It's clickbait.

Suicides, homicides, and accidents all have different motives and circumstances. Further, suicides and homicides are often driven by mental illness, while accidemts are driven by not following precautions. They require different strategies to fix each problem, because they are three different problems.

Correlation between the existence of firearms and the presence of fireaems deaths is actually kind of obvious people cannot die of something that has not been invented yet. The real question is causality: Why do people get shot and killed? This is why the data in this article is useless--there is no control group. It does not show whether gun deaths are more frequent where firearms are legal, or more common where they have been outlawed. It merely shows that they exist.

Show me data that indicates--beyond a shadow of a doubt--that states with looser gun laws have more firearms homicides than states with stricter gun laws. Then you will have won.

> If I could downvote this for being a sensationalist article, I would

You can't technically downvote, but you can morally do so by clicking 'flag'. Many of your fellow users did so, and your desired effect would have happened a bit sooner had you joined them.

Making a fine substantive counterpoint, as you did, is excellent too!

Ah, yes, flag it because heavens forbid anyone on HN discusses gun violence!

I didn't say that it ought to be flagged, only what the effect would be.

As far as HN goes, the limits of discussion are primarily about what's on-topic, but also about what the community is capable of discussing without rupturing blood vessels or having fist fights break out in Parliament.

Even though I consider this a sensationalist article ... I think its important for the community like ours to offer conjecture on an intellectual level, because I think Hack News is a GREAT forum for more than just "geeks", but it brings together one of the most diverse crowds I've seen. yes, there are fierce beliefs on both sides of the debate, but if anyone can have something more progressive it's folks in IT.

I know Americans love their guns and I don't want you to amend your amendments, but you almost made an interesting point, just changing the 2nd part in your sentence:

> It's amazing that we've improved vehicle safety in the last 60 years, yet there's no progress in gun violence.