gun control statistics...

[Koda94]

How does everyone counter anti-gun statistics?

According to the number put out by the CDC and Bloombergs Everytown, guns should have easily been banned years ago. 90 something people are killed by a gun per day in America...

So when someone throws some of these statistics at you, how do you counter them?



sources:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

https://everytownresearch.org/gun-vi...y-the-numbers/

[Spats McGee]

Mark Twain once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

There are a few viable responses.

1) With my own statistics or questions. We have A Repository of Reliable Sources & Citations from which you can dig out some of your own numbers.

2) My personal favorite: By asking questions. Find out who came up with the number and how. The definitions used, or the questions asked (if polling) in gathering the data are vital to knowing whether any given statistic is worth a hill of beans. Here are some examples:

Antigunner: "90 people are killed every day by guns in the United States!"
Spats: "Of those 90, how many are suicides? Self-defense? How many are police shootings?"

Antigunner: "1500 children are killed every year by guns in the United States!"
Spats: "Define 'children.' I think I read that report, but IIRC, it defined 'children' as being up to the age of 25. If your definition of 'children' includes 18-25 year-old gangbangers, it's going to skew your numbers."

Antigunner: "90% of Americans support an Assault Weapons Ban!"
Spats: "How many people were polled? How were those people selected for polling? For example, if 300 people in San Francisco were all that were polled, I'd hardly call that a representative sample."

Those are just a couple of ways I deal with those statistics. Often, though, I simply tell them that I really don't give a rat's behind about the statistics. We're talking about my legal right to own the tools necessary to protect myself and my family. Rights aren't necessarily subject to a popular vote.

[NoSecondBest]

Spats, as a retired quality engineer and a long time shooter, I couldn't have answered that any better. Spot on!!!

[raimius]

Most people cite statistics that they feel support their preconceived ideas. Depending on the person, you can show them errors in statistical analysis, have them reassess their preconceived ideas, or get them to agree that government forced compliance is not the best method.

[ShootistPRS]

Keep in mind that 1 to 3 million times a year good people stop crimes with their own guns - most without ever firing a shot or involving the police.

The one thing you can point out is that there are two words they always use: GUN VIOLENCE

They are concentrating their efforts on the GUN but not the VIOLENCE. If we prosecute the violence the guns are left in the hands of responsible lawful citizens.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by ShootistPRS

Keep in mind that 1 to 3 million times a year good people stop crimes with their own guns - most without ever firing a shot or involving the police.

The one thing you can point out is that there are two words they always use: GUN VIOLENCE

They are concentrating their efforts on the GUN but not the VIOLENCE. If we prosecute the violence the guns are left in the hands of responsible lawful citizens.

this is true, and I have used that statistic to counter... but it always gets refuted as nonsense. Its frustrating actually how they pick and choose what 'statistic' they want to believe in.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Mark Twain once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

There are a few viable responses.

1) With my own statistics or questions. We have A Repository of Reliable Sources & Citations from which you can dig out some of your own numbers.

2) My personal favorite: By asking questions. Find out who came up with the number and how. The definitions used, or the questions asked (if polling) in gathering the data are vital to knowing whether any given statistic is worth a hill of beans. Here are some examples:

Antigunner: "90 people are killed every day by guns in the United States!"
Spats: "Of those 90, how many are suicides? Self-defense? How many are police shootings?"

Antigunner: "1500 children are killed every year by guns in the United States!"
Spats: "Define 'children.' I think I read that report, but IIRC, it defined 'children' as being up to the age of 25. If your definition of 'children' includes 18-25 year-old gangbangers, it's going to skew your numbers."

Antigunner: "90% of Americans support an Assault Weapons Ban!"
Spats: "How many people were polled? How were those people selected for polling? For example, if 300 people in San Francisco were all that were polled, I'd hardly call that a representative sample."

Those are just a couple of ways I deal with those statistics. Often, though, I simply tell them that I really don't give a rat's behind about the statistics. We're talking about my legal right to own the tools necessary to protect myself and my family. Rights aren't necessarily subject to a popular vote.

this is good and what Ive done in the past I just needed a refresher. Every now and then the debate comes back up but its been a while and I get jaded trying to keep up with the politics sometimes...

thanks for that link though, I bookmarked it. I did a quick skim and followed more links and read some for a bit. Lots of good information in there and was able to add some more information to my study.

[ShootistPRS]

The 1 to 3 million statistic came from the Obama administration and the CDC inquiry into the "epidemic" of gun violence in the USA. It is, by all rights, their own statistics.
There are also statistics that show violence increases when guns are removed. It would seem that if we remove the violent the guns will be fine. They will just lie there in their safes and holsters and no one will suffer violence from the guns.

[g.willikers]

Reply #1:
Those statistics conveniently ignore all the good people who didn't go to the morgue or hospital because they had the means to defend themselves.

Reply #2:
Do those numbers mean anything if you're the one being attacked?

[44 AMP]

Antigunner: "90 people are killed every day by guns in the United States!"
Spats: "Of those 90, how many are suicides? Self-defense? How many are police shootings?"

The Everytown website linked to, the same one that makes the statement 93 people killed every day by guns ALSO says 62% of people killed by guns are suicides.

SO using their own figures, (and rounding off a bit) 57 of those 93 are suicides.

Think about it, for a moment, (IF their numbers are right) out of a nation of over 300 MILLION people 57 (or so) kill themselves with a gun, every day. Seems to me, there are greater threats to public safety than what tool people who choose to end their own lives use to do it.

Or, in the words of Archie Bunker, "would you prefer they jumped out of a window?"

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The Everytown website linked to, the same one that makes the statement 93 people killed every day by guns ALSO says 62% of people killed by guns are suicides.

SO using their own figures, (and rounding off a bit) 57 of those 93 are suicides.

Think about it, for a moment, (IF their numbers are right) out of a nation of over 300 MILLION people 57 (or so) kill themselves with a gun, every day. Seems to me, there are greater threats to public safety than what tool people who choose to end their own lives use to do it.

Or, in the words of Archie Bunker, "would you prefer they jumped out of a window?"

I noticed that too.
One thing Ive used to counter the addition of suicides by firearm is that Japan has virtually no access to guns and has a much higher rate of suicide than the US.

but the antis refuse to accept that as a usable statistic too...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan

[Shenna9220]

Or you just might want to tell them that 59 to 65,000 died of drug overdoses in 2016 and it is projected that upward to 100,000 may die this year.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...than-ever.html

[Pahoo]

So when someone throws some of these statistics at you, how do you counter them?

Right off, I don't acknowledge them as these conversations soon turn into spitting contests that go; nowhere. I don't talk "Gun-Control" as it's strictly political. I do talk 2A as it means exactly what it says. ......

Those who talk about Gun-Control, should logically include knives, big trucks and hammer control. In class, I ask folks how anyone can hold a Firearm or Projectile accountable for it's actions. .....

Once at a range, I asked a mother is she wanted to shoot one of my M/L's after her sons were done shooting. She replied "No" because "Guns were made to kill people. I asked her where she heard that as no reasonable mind would ever come up with that. She did admit that she heard it on the news. I then told her that firearms are made to protect and provide for folks and yes, there are times when folks get hurt, in the process. She admitted that that did sound more reasonable. I also asked her why she let her sons shoot??

Be Safe !!!

[jdc1244]

How does everyone counter anti-gun statistics?

By not referring to them as ‘anti-gun’ statistics – because they aren’t ‘anti-gun’ – objective, documented facts and evidence can neither ‘pro’ nor ‘anti.’

After you acknowledges that the data are accurate and correct you explain that the problem isn’t the availability of guns or the specific types of guns that are available; rather, the problem is the propensity for violence in American culture, that we are an inherently violent society, where violence is sanctioned as a legitimate form of conflict resolution.

You then explain that most of the gun crime and violence are the consequence of mental health issues, that we have failed to afford citizens access to comprehensive mental healthcare detection and treatment, and if that comprehensive mental health treatment were readily available, much of the gun crime and violence wouldn’t occur.

Last, and most importantly, you don’t make use of inane clichés such as ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people,’ or ‘criminals don’t obey gun laws,’ or ‘gun crimes are highest in jurisdictions with strict gun-control laws’ and other such sophomoric nonsense.

[rwilson452]

I like to use a quote from a famous American that lived in my area for some time. "There are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies, and statistics." Do you know this person?

[jag2]

Lots of good replies, I'll add one more. Are these the same staticians that said Hillary would win in a landslide?

[44 AMP]

One thing Ive used to counter the addition of suicides by firearm is that Japan has virtually no access to guns and has a much higher rate of suicide than the US.

I don't think it is a good idea to use data from, or about other countries in a debate or discussion about US gun control.

Primarily because the data isn''t relative to the US, especially the way the anti's wish to assume it is.

Other countries are simply, NOT US. Laws, language, customs, history, social pressures and moral guidelines are DIFFERENT. Different from each other, and different from US.

Another reason not to use "facts" from other nations in our gun control debate is that some other nations have been "caught" cooking their books to give a politically desired result. They do this by having different reporting standards, or changing the reporting standards for certain crimes.

Some years ago, I heard that Japan had finally changed their policy about a certain crime. (and since I cannot verify or provide a source, I offer this as hearsay, not verified fact, something to consider, not hard proof)

Seems the Japanese had a category of murder that was, for many, many years not counted as a crime in their criminal statistics reports.

Apparently a cultural thing. And it happened so often it was considered "normal" and not criminal behavior. An overstressed head of household snaps, and kills his family, then himself (nearly always with an edged weapon, knife, sword, etc.) For a long time, this wasn't considered "murder" and didn't go into the murder statistics. Today, as I understand it, it does.

Britain got some (but very little) news coverage a few years back, when it came to light that they had changed the categorization of certain crimes (such as home invasion robberies) to produce lower crime statistics.

People in the US do it, as well, "adjusting" their parameters so that the results produced are the ones desired, not the actual factual ones.

One of the big ones (I believe they were calling themselves "Handgun Control Inc." at the time, they have changed their name several times, since) got "busted" about their statistics when an insider revealed that every death where a firearm was involved (any firearm), and the person(s) killed were under 25 years old, was reported by them as "death of a child, due to a handgun".

If they use the argument that today's violence problems are due to the "easy availability" of guns, you might point out that 50 years ago, there were no background checks, (instant or otherwise), gun dealers were not required to have Federal licenses, convicted felons were not prohibited from having guns FOR LIFE (only while serving their sentences), guns could be bought through the mail, and delivered right to your door, and we didn't have the kind of problems then, that we do today.

Schools were not gun-free zones, indeed, some schools had rifle marksmanship teams and competitions. And, those "evil" military style weapons were available then, too. ARs and others. Guns were just as available back then, if not moreso than today. It is SOMETHING ELSE that has changed.

The way I see it, the something else that has changed is the reluctance to shoot other people, especially innocent people.

[rwilson452]

No one answered my post so...

I like to use a quote from a famous American that lived in my area for some time. "There are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies, and statistics." Do you know this person?

That person was Samuel Clemens. AKA Mark Twain.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by rwilson452

No one answered my post so...

That person was Samuel Clemens. AKA Mark Twain.

See post #2.

[TomNJVA]

I avoid engaging antis in a statistical debate as it is just a waste of time. There are statistics to support any position you wish to take, just as there are "studies" to support every dietary supplement you want to sell. I just ask them if their home was invaded in the middle of the night, would they wish they had a gun, or do they prefer to wait for the police to arrive. I choose both.

The first book I read in college was "How to Lie with Statistics". What an eye opener.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by jdc1244

...you explain that the problem isn’t the availability of guns or the specific types of guns that are available; rather, the problem is the propensity for violence in American culture, that we are an inherently violent society, where violence is sanctioned as a legitimate form of conflict resolution.

You then explain that most of the gun crime and violence are the consequence of mental health issues, that we have failed to afford citizens access to comprehensive mental healthcare detection and treatment, and if that comprehensive mental health treatment were readily available, much of the gun crime and violence wouldn’t occur.

IMHO both of these arguments are defensive in nature, better for preaching to the converted than reaching the unconverted.

If we accept that American society is inexorably violent, and that this problem is intransigent, then it's easy to argue that the best solution is to take as many weapons out of circulation as possible, thus ensuring that fewer people get killed. This is perhaps the most common argument for strict gun control in the U.S. from the 1960s to present!

Furthermore, this argument fails to explain why vast demographic swaths of the U.S. population are overwhelmingly peaceful despite high gun ownership rates, and its underlying premise is contradicted by violent crime rates having been much lower before WWII when gun-purchase regulations were very lax compared to today (re: 44 AMP).

The mental-health argument is also a very slippery slope. Many people with mild mental health issues pose minimal danger to themselves and others, while some of the more severe disorders are hard to identify and treat, often because people with such problems are hesitant to seek treatment. If society enacts punitive measures, such as prohibiting people with mild mental disorders from possessing firearms, it's likely to stigmatize the mild cases while driving the really dangerous ones further underground. Additionally, recall that mental-health diagnoses have a distressing habit of varying with predominant cultural mores (e.g. homosexuality was long considered a disorder), and have often been used to beat down politically unpopular groups if not oppress them outright.

[Tom Servo]

Antigunner: "90% of Americans support an Assault Weapons Ban!"
Spats: "How many people were polled? How were those people selected for polling? For example, if 300 people in San Francisco were all that were polled, I'd hardly call that a representative sample."

The simple answer is usually this: OK, show me the data, please. That shuts it down real quick.

The Quinnipiac group that did the "study" leading to the 90% figure did their best to refuse to share their raw data. Then they tried to obfuscate it behind a paywall. Then it turned out they'd only polled students at a couple of local colleges and extrapolated that to represent the whole country.

If they want to claim their bent statistics are science, fine. Scientists have no problem showing their work. Let's not forget the infamous Kellerman "if you have a gun in the home, you're 43 times more likely to be shot" study from 1993. He refused to show his data. When he was backed into a corner, he claimed he'd lost it in an office flood. When his hand was finally forced, his methodology and data were so poor they wouldn't have passed muster in a high school term paper.

In that case, the antis let it fade into obscurity, waited a few years, and trotted it back out hoping nobody would check their work.

Yeah, well with the internet and all, that's not really possible these days.

Recently, the Violence Policy Center (our friends who invented "assault weapons") published a study that was going to ROCK THE WORLD. It claimed that Kleck, Mustard, and all the other folks claiming 1 to 3 million defensive gun uses per year were totally off base and that true defensive uses only occurred a couple of hundred times a year.

They did so by only counting justified homicides. Crafty, right? Let's remember that most handgun wounds are survivable, that guns are rarely actually fired in DGU situations, and that many locales don't have an actual "justified homicide" statute.

I have a friend who's actually a statistician. He utterly abhors the sloppy and often deliberate misuse of statistics.

[5whiskey]

I have a friend who's actually a statistician. He utterly abhors the sloppy and often deliberate misuse of statistics.

I take it he can't watch any news outlet, read any newspaper or news magazine, or really anything else without puking. Poor guy.

[rickyrick]

I used to fight that battle, but I grew weary of the nonsense rebuttals.
I stay out of most of the political issues now, at least as far as trying to prove my side. There's not much logic and reason in the opposing viewpoints. No sense arguing with a group that ignores fact and includes emotion as an element of logic.

Of topic, but people put too much stock in social media; social media is the modern version of the bathroom wall.

[DaleA]

social media is the modern version of the bathroom wall.

!!!
Got that right!