Percentage murders in U.S. by Firearms in 2010

[USPatriot]

So I 've been having this arguement with this guy about guns, gun control, the bill of rights, etc. & he will not listen to anything I tell him. No big deal right? Wrong! It's guys like this that get our guns taken away. Now there is nothing we can do about people like him but we can educate folks a little so I thought I would throw out the percentage of people that were murdered in the U.S. in 2010 (the latest I could find) & it's a whopping .00282%. Remember that these are murders though not other types of violent crimes commited with firearms. Think I'll start getting some statistics together & arming myself with some knowledge.


U.S. Patriot

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Caertaker]

Welcome to the forum. Linking the source of your statistics/data is generally a good idea. It helps foster further discussion and lends credibility to your post.

[suntzu]

The counter argument when you use stats like that is "why then do you need a gun for self defense if it is so unlikely that you will be murdered? You must be paranoid."

When folks want to argue about the 2A I don't use stats....because that is not the reason why should be allowed to carry firearms, The answer is that it is a right. It doesn't matter if 1 murder a day is caused by fire arms or 50000 a day. Stats do not define a right.

[archer51]

So I 've been having this arguement with this guy about guns, gun control, the bill of rights, etc. & he will not listen to anything I tell him. No big deal right? Wrong! It's guys like this that get our guns taken away. Now there is nothing we can do about people like him but we can educate folks a little so I thought I would throw out the percentage of people that were murdered in the U.S. in 2010 (the latest I could find) & it's a whopping .00282%. Remember that these are murders though not other types of violent crimes commited with firearms. Think I'll start getting some statistics together & arming myself with some knowledge.


U.S. Patriot

I learned many years ago that is isn't worth having a battle of wit with an unarmed person. It only brings you down to their level. You're never going to change an anti's mind.

[USPatriot]

Thank you for the welcome. My sources were google, U.S. population, Deaths by firearm (2010 was the latest I could find), & fraction to percent calculator. Pretty straight forward actually. I realize the percentile is probably off by a tiny amount due to differences in the year of census & the year the murders were recorded in but the discrepency is negligble at best.

[USPatriot]

The counter argument when you use stats like that is "why then do you need a gun for self defense if it is so unlikely that you will be murdered? You must be paranoid."

When folks want to argue about the 2A I don't use stats....because that is not the reason why should be allowed to carry firearms, The answer is that it is a right. It doesn't matter if 1 murder a day is caused by fire arms or 50000 a day. Stats do not define a right.

While I agree with the reasoning you gave for why we carry, it tends to help (not always) if the uninformed, know why we have the right to begin with. As I'm sure you are aware if you've lived more than 20 years (I have no idea how old you are), people are obtuse & many need things spelled out, people that may have some degree of control on me keeping my rights.

[GeorgiaDawg]

Welcome to the forum. I don't mind using statistics as a supplement to the Constitutional argument. Some people just don't care about the Constitution and would love to change it since it's a "dead" and "outdated" document to them. Having a versatile amount of support for your argument is always good, so keep it up. I agree with the citation thing, though. Anyone (including those you are arguing with) can pull out some random statistic from their backside, so it's great if others know where you found that info so they can check it for themselves.

[Bullet1234]

Even if the .00282%. is correct,,,, you CAN NOT ARGUE with a fool,,,, anyone
who does not protect himself ,,,,, is MY DEFINITION OF A FOOLISH PERSON.

Never argue with an idiot - they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience.

[Doodle]

My favorite firearm statistic is the percentage of murders commited with legally owned firearms. The number I usually find is way less than 1 percent and proves more gun control is not required as it's not the legal owners committing the crimes.

[oakchas]

While I agree with all the posts above... I do think that using statistics can be useful in discussions with antis... They like to use them, too... and it gives you a basis from which to work.

Some can be won over... But, it takes a looooong time... it's like turning an ocean liner... running in a sea of molasses.

Here's one I use...

The odds of having a reportable house fire are about one in 315
(took a lot of math and searching to come up with that number and I believe it to be accurate, though there is no specific link to a study.

And according to the National Safety Council, in the top ten likely means of death...
the odds of Death by Firearm Assault are 1 in 314...
Currently (as of the time of this posting) NCS.org server is down... but here is a link that quotes the study:
Most Likely Ways of Dying

Many people have a fire extinguisher in their home. just in case... but the odds of dying in a fire don't make the top ten...
Most people do not carry a gun for self defense... but the odds of dying from one are in the top ten...

[suntzu]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My argument to that stat is : Any individual's odds of dying from various external causes are affected by the activities in which they participate, where they live and drive, what kind of work they do, and other factors. So, 1 in 314 for living in Flint, Michigan can be 1 in 20,000 for someone living in northern NH.

When pro gun folks use stats I listen to them just as much as when the Brady Bunch uses stats--meaningless. We have a right to bear arms regardless of stats-period

[ArmyMan]

So I 've been having this arguement with this guy about guns, gun control, the bill of rights, etc. & he will not listen to anything I tell him. No big deal right? Wrong! It's guys like this that get our guns taken away. Now there is nothing we can do about people like him but we can educate folks a little so I thought I would throw out the percentage of people that were murdered in the U.S. in 2010 (the latest I could find) & it's a whopping .00282%. Remember that these are murders though not other types of violent crimes commited with firearms. Think I'll start getting some statistics together & arming myself with some knowledge.


U.S. Patriot

I understand your problem, and may I inform you that you need something different than statistics. This guy's opinion isn't based on data to begin with, so neither will it be swayed by data.

Please read and consider the following link: Hoplophobia Analysis

About half way down the page it offers proven ways to directly address an anti-gun person. For example:

Reversing Irrational thoughts: The Mirror Technique

One approach that can be helpful is simply to feed back what the anti-gun person is telling you, in a neutral, inquisitive way. So, when replying to my anonymous e-mail correspondent (above), I might respond, "So you fear if your neighbors had guns, they would use them to murder you. What makes you think that?" When you simply repeat what the person has said, and ask questions, you are not directly challenging his defenses. You are holding up a mirror to let him see his own views. If he has very strong defenses, he can continue to insist that his neighbors want to murder him. However, if his defenses are less rigid, he may start to question his position.

Another example might be, "Why do you think that your children's schoolteachers would shoot them?" You might follow this up with something like, "Why do you entrust your precious children to someone you believe would murder them?" Again, you are merely asking questions, and not directly attacking the person or his defenses.

[suntzu]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
IMO that advice is hogwash. It only works for simpleminded folks and whether we want to beleive it or not most anti's are not idiots. They have a different stance and view on things. You try that argument/approach with folks I know they will look at you like your an idiot.
That is why you keep asking questions on this forum. Redirecting a question is a better way of putting it. You have tried using that tactic on this forum in another thread.

[chefjon]

My favorite number to quote when dealing with a gun-"control"-activist is 4, the number of words that comprise 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'.

They always come up with the "Well regulated militia" and I counter with the fact that every able-bodied male in America at the time WAS considered the militia, and that more likely what that meant was that we should have mandatory service like Israel or Sweden.

I also love the "The founding fathers didn't imagine modern weapons when they said that" fallacy. Yes, they did. When they wrote that Amendment, they meant for citizens to have equal firepower to their government, as a defense against tyranny. They had seen the evolution of arms and knew that it would continue. They could have specified the weapons a citizen could keep and/or bear BUT THEY DIDN'T! I don't, however, believe they envisioned that the government would so easily infringe that right.

[ArmyMan]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
IMO that advice is hogwash. It only works for simpleminded folks and whether we want to beleive it or not most anti's are not idiots. They have a different stance and view on things. You try that argument/approach with folks I know they will look at you like your an idiot.
That is why you keep asking questions on this forum. Redirecting a question is a better way of putting it. You have tried using that tactic on this forum in another thread.

What's wrong with asking questions?