Those statistics are so very abused.
You've got Maryland, a gun-grabber state with a high murder rate, then you've got Massachusettes, another gun-grabber state, with a much lower murder rate. This proves nothing.
You've got Iowa, a pro-gun state vs. Texas a pro-gun state, and their rates are totally different. That proves nothing.
This is highly politically incorrect, but these stats, imo, have more to do with economics and race/minorities than they do with gun laws.
Just go down the list and be honest with yourself. Every state with a low murder rate also happens to be a lot less diverse, both racially and economically. And economics tie into the picture because poor people resort to violence a whole lot more. These states with super-low rates (under 2), as a whole, do not have massive inner-city urban cauldrons of violence. That's because they are probably a lot more gang-free. Less poverty, less gangs, less murder.
Most murders are not a result of peaceful gunowners. These figures include all murders. If two rival crackheads shoot eachother and one dies, they chalk up a murder for that state. That isn't a fair assessment to make pro/con when it comes to discussing the RKBA.
IN REALITY, we should immediately refrain from engaging in a debate based on crime stats. It is a flawed method for argumentation even when the data favors our cause. It concedes that gun-control or the RKBA is dependant or susceptable to interpretation or regulation by crime statistics. When you say "oh yeah, our state allows concealed carry and the murder rate is low"...what are you arguing? That when the murder rate goes up that concealed carry should be revoked? We shouldn't allow, in any way, shape, or form, for there to exist a single avenue by which one can imply that the RKBA is debatable.
The Second Amendment and the RKBA have nothing to do with crime. Nothing to do with violence. I don't care if 1,000 die of gun violence tomorrow. My Rights are not subject to other people's abuses and misuses. No matter how extreme. Rights are inherent, they are God-given (nature given if you're not into the God thing), and inalienable. No changes allowed. Period.
The truth is, SPEECH has killed more people in the 20th Century than guns ever did. It wasn't a gun that killed all the Jews during the Holocaust (nor was it Zyklon-B), it was an IDEA of racism and hate. And speech was used as a weapon to deliver these ideas to the masses.
Despite massive abuses and serious consequences of free-speech in America, which has also led to many countless deaths - no one considers restricting free speech. Yet, guns are a target because they are a physical object. This is the bias we face.
All that being said, we need to start changing the way we think, talk and argue about the RKBA. Next time you face off with a gun-grabber, don't argue crime stats, just tell them straight up that Rights aren't negotiable. If they think you are a radical because of that - oh well. Tell them that if believing in inalienable Rights is radical, you're happy to be one. Tell them that the entire basis for their entire argument and belief system is that we should limit Rights based on statistics. Talk about a slippery-slope proposition.
If you just confront people with these arguments - the debate is over instantly, as a debate NEVER exists or forms. State your belief as a statement, not an argument. Foolish to even argue something that is an automatic, a given, and an unalienable Right.
Some of the founding fathers considered not including some of our Rights in the Constitution because they felt it was so absurd to even have to state what is automatically accepted to be a God-given Right that no government can touch. Fortunately, others were more astute to the reality and corruptability of government and fought for a guarantee in writing.
