help me refute gun grabber


April 2, 2003, 06:17 PM
Got a female coworker who is as anti as it gets. A real gun grabber. She would be happy if only the government had guns. She is always telling me that statistics show that your 50 times more likely to be killed with your own gun that to thwart a crime. She says that her data is FBI statistics. Anybody know a good site that will provide data to refute her claim

If you enjoyed reading about "help me refute gun grabber" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
April 2, 2003, 06:27 PM
Not what you were looking for at all, but funny none-the-less:

Ban Doctors Not Guns (

April 2, 2003, 06:30 PM
Guncite (

Also, google "Dave Kopel" "Kleck", "More Guns, Less Crime" and "Gun Truths"

Don't be surprised if you don't get anywhere, though. Not all people listen to reason. Many will dismiss it as counter propaganda, as they cling to the lie that the 2nd is about the Nat'l Guard, that only the demented would want a gun, and that guns are imbued with the supernatural power of causing crime.

April 2, 2003, 06:37 PM
Tell her to bring you a hard copy of her "statistics", then give her a copy of Gary Kleck's "More Guns, Less Crime" and show her the truth.

April 2, 2003, 06:41 PM
well gee the millions of defensive uses of a weapon sure are resulting in hundreds of millions of deaths in this country alone, arent they?

fact: less than 30,000 firearm related deaths annually, this number has been dropping for the last several years, and considering that there are now 80,000,000+ gunowners in this country with over 300,000,000 guns, the statistics do NOT show a proportionate increase in firearm related deaths that track the inflated production and sales of firearms in this country.

fact: the department of justice research showed that there are more than 1.5 million defensive uses of a gun in this country EACH YEAR. anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics will deduce that of the 270 who died during 2000 from legal interventions involving a firearm (not going to count in the homicides, accidents, or suicides), only one in 5,556 legal uses of a firearm to defend oneself results in a death. if you use the high estimate of 4,000,000 defensive uses of a firearm, that becomes one in 14,815.

firearm deaths from 1979 - 2000, from the CDC national vital statistics report
1979 - 33,019
1980 - 33,780
1981 - 34,050
1982 - 32,957
1983 - 31,099
1984 - 31,331
1985 - 31,566
1986 - 33,373
1987 - 32,895
1988 - 33,989
1989 - 34,776
1990 - 37,155
1991 - 38,317
1992 - 37,776
1993 - 39,595
1994 - 38,505
1995 - 35,957
1996 - 34,040
1997 - 32,436
1998 - 30,708
1999 - 28,874
2000 - 28,663

Number 6
April 2, 2003, 06:59 PM
Ask her how the FBI arrived at such a statistic. When doing statistical analysis there are many factors that can affect the validity of the statistic. Often one encounters a statistic that is being used that upon closer examination does not apply to a given situation. Statistics provide good information but they must be done correctly and interpreted correctly. Whenever we hear a statistic or a poll on the news or in the paper we usually only get a very small portion of what the study actually published. When Gallup publishes a study they usually provide information on how the study was conducted and various other factors that have bearing on the validity of the data. Her data might actually be correct but my question to her is if she is using it correctly or if she is even interpreting the data correctly. A lot of people hear a statistic and automatically think it proves her point. There was a study done once that said that the more firemen that were called to a fire, the more damage to property there was. From this point one could argue then that there should be no fireman since there is a correlation between fireman and property damage. But such an argument forgets that more firemen are called for a more serious fire. The statistic she cites seems to be using the same type of logic. Of coarse I am more likely to shoot myself due to the fact that I shoot my gun once a week. Every time I shoot my gun there is a small chance that I will accidentally shoot myself. This then adds up over time. The amount of crime committed upon me happens far less than I shoot my gun so the odds are much less for me to use my gun in self defense. It’s just a game of probability not necessarily a good argument she is using. Even if her statistic is correct in my opinion it is a meaningless statistic.

April 2, 2003, 07:07 PM
If I remember my criminology classes correctly, the FBI gets its statistical information from analyzing data voluntarily submitted to them by local law enforcement agencies. Thus, not all crimes are reported and while providing a reference point they are not very accurate. Her numbers seem WAY off anyways...

Dave R
April 2, 2003, 07:09 PM
The statistic she quotes is a severe distortion derived from several sifferent statistics. For example, suicides vs. presence or absence of guns in the home. They then assume that the firearms caused all the suicides.

Here's a sanity check. Dept. of Justice reports 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms in a year (see earlier post).

If you REALLY are 50 times more likely to be shot by your own gun than to thwart a crime, then there would have to be 75 million people a year killed by their own gun. Obviously, that is not true.

I second as a good source for "ammo".

English John
April 2, 2003, 07:15 PM
Facts don't mean a d--- thing, she is working off emotion. Her ideas are OK,......... for her. Ask her if she would like to live your life style? Then ask her why you should live hers? The best part of Freedom is freedom of choice. Now, if she wants to restrict YOUR freedom, that's another story. Also, do a search on 40 reasons for gun control. John

April 2, 2003, 07:38 PM
I think the 50x argument is not really from the FBI, but rather the Kellerman study. Check out this article refuting the claims of that study:

Evaluating the "43 times" fallacy (


Standing Wolf
April 2, 2003, 08:51 PM
Attempting to reason with leftists is like wrestling with pigs: the pigs don't like it, and you're just going to get all muddy.

April 2, 2003, 09:01 PM
You can also remind her that governments in this world have a wonderful record with disarmed populations. Nazi Germany, Cambodia, China, Uganda, etc. et al, ad nauseum

April 2, 2003, 11:16 PM
Here's a Forty Reasons To Support Gun Control ( link, in the interest of making the WWW even more web-like. :)

April 3, 2003, 12:04 AM
She's misquoting the stat.

It goes something like.

It's more likely that your or a family member will be killed by a gun you own than it is that you will use the gun to kill an attacker.

Stated that way, it is true, but still misleading.

The first statistic depends on using suicides (esp teen suicides) stats to pad out the "you or a family member will be killed" part of the statement.

The second statistic is tremendously restrictive since the VAST majority of defensive gun uses don't even involve firing the gun, let alone killing someone with it.

Sort of like saying: Bull riding is safer than being an accountant since more accountants die every year than bull riders.

It leaves out a lot of important information that's relevant to the issue.

Elmer Snerd
April 3, 2003, 12:19 AM

CDC Mortality Reports, searchable by year, age, method, intent, area, etc:

Unintentional firearm deaths of children up to age 10 in 2000: 41.
Unintentional Drownings as above: 801.
Unintentional Motor Vehicle deaths: 1752.
Residential fire deaths: 505.
Firearm homicides: 99.
Non-firearm homicides: 771.
Remember, these stats only go to age 10.

Emphasize that this data is from the Center for Disease Control (, not an "extremist pro-gun lobby militia extremist gun nut terroristswhojustwannakillchilldrrennn" site.
It might help to mention that NCIPC (, a division of CDC, was smacked by Congress ( for spending tax dollars on ANTI-gun research.

Show her this about MMM just for yuks:

April 3, 2003, 02:44 AM
Just look at it this way, the Justice Department has it at 533,000 and change crimes committed with guns in 2001, and 1.5 million defensive uses at least.

The 50 times more likely crap is most definitely not a FBI statistic, and is basically a complete fabrication with the tricks they did to reach that number...

April 3, 2003, 08:29 AM
Gun Facts (

Don Gwinn
April 3, 2003, 08:49 AM
You are attempting to wrestle with a pig. Forget it. Just tell her to bring in a hard copy of her statistics. Until she does, cut her off every time she tries to talk to you about guns.

If she brings something in, THEN you pick it apart. But if you do it without the written word in front of you she'll simply backpedal and change the supposed "facts" over and over. You'll never get anywhere.

April 3, 2003, 08:56 AM
All of the above suggestions are good. I don't mean to nitpick, but:
Gary Kleck's "More Guns, Less Crime"
More Guns, Less Crime is by John Lott.
Gary Kleck wrote Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America

Good luck with the anti. Usually sticking to logic, facts and reason works well in refuting them, and all the previous suggestions have given you good ammunition (no pun intended) to use in your debates.


Silver Bullet
April 3, 2003, 10:08 AM
It's not about home defense, anyway; it's about being able to respond to a tyrannical government.

If you enjoyed reading about "help me refute gun grabber" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!