Hey guys,

So gun control has not yet been mentioned by the Biden administration or the current democrats in power. Hopefully the democrats continue to squabble over Trump, hearings and covid for a long while and forget about gun control.
But if the conversation moves in that direction, we will be debating gun banners left and right.

I want to get my facts straight. We will be hearing stats like, "statistically, areas with higher gun ownership have more violence" and "self defense using firearms are rare."

Post here any accurate and vetted resources regarding crime, gun ownership rates, death, rates of AR15 homicide vs pistol/knife/alcohol related homicide, etc.

This information will be good to inform people who are on the fence, those who mistakenly believe in gun control, and even other gun owners who are both new and experienced.

I have plenty of liberal friends who have told me in the past that they are ambivalent on the topic, so I need to study up.

I hear alot of people here saying that it's pointless to debate liberals. In my experience and past, I have been able to convince liberals to support gun rights, have gotten several liberal friends INTO shooting, and even got some to purchase guns. Especially those "on the fence." So I would beg to differ that it's pointless. I just need the facts to back me up.

Don't bother debating.  We're done with the talking phase.  Both sides are.

Statistically it doesnt matter how much data you show them

Most people have their mind made up when it comes to firearms

You can memorize all the stats you want.

They won't believe you know matter what you show them or say.

They really live in an alternate reality.

You can't successfully debate the mentally retarded.

First post nails it again.  

ETA:  You can't reason someone out of a position they 'felt' their way in to.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Give them a copy of the bureau of prison statistics.

It’s very clear in there where criminals get their guns.

Hint- it’s not the gun show loophole.

~82% come from one of 3 categories.  Stolen, traded for drugs, straw purchase.

Less that 2% were obtained from a gun show.

It won’t matter.  Even Obama’s study showed something similar and do you ever hear of that report?

Last straw purchase I heard about being prosecuted was some guy that bought a blue label Glock for a family member.  They don’t want to stop gun crime.

I'm not going to debate with you guys the feasibility or effectiveness of debating liberals on gun control. Maybe you guys have not been successful in the past, but I have. Converting liberals is possible. Converting those "on the fence" is even better.

Those kind of stats are what I'm looking for. Do you have a link?

The left dont care about statistics because they know gun control isnt about guns its about control... They can't subjugate armed peasants and they will never have total control until all the privately owned firearms are accounted for.

I'd just want to take the tactic of throwing facts out there and have the other side admit that they don't care about facts.

it was never about being right.

its about control. you arn't even a person to them.

You can start with FBI statistics that show 2/3s of the "gun violence" they always use is suicide

It also shows something like 2% of homicides are from long guns, which an AR would be a small fragment of

You are more likely to be killed in a drunk driving accident than murdered with a firearm in the USA

Gun statistics
From the Thomas Sowell Foundation

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.0009% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease.

It’s time to stop sugar & carbs!! So what is the point? If the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."

Give me a minute.....DOJ website sucks on a phone.

2001 report

Click the “full report”

Still looking for the CDC report

There is only one stat that matters but it may not be cited because reasons.

Actually Detroit doesn't have any stricter gun laws than the rest of Michigan. And Michigan is a pretty gun friendly state. It's just Detroit is a shit hole.

yes it has, and we're barely a week into this new utopia

Beautiful! This is the kind of information I am looking for. Keep it up. Any links to the source material?

I'm curios how you define their conversion?

Buying a gun?

Voting for or against certain candidates?

Something else?

Dont forget to mention the conservative estimate of 500k that use a gun to defend theirselves. That's potentially 500k felonies prevented to include rape, robbery,  murder and rape.
If you are talking to a female, be sure to say rape twice.

I give the OP credit for trying and even apparently succeeding.

As the saying goes, you can't reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into. Emotions rule those folks' every perception.

I just ask them how more gun laws are gonna change criminals when they don't follow the law to begin with. Murder is already illegal.

Anyone willing to have a meaningful conversation about it or even go to the range is probably more moderate than they'd like to admit.

Good luck.

The Marxist have taught the useful idiots that facts and statistics are RACIST.

You wont ever reach anyone that hates you more than they care about anything in their life.

Leftists don't care about stats or facts. Everything is emotional to them. Their response to facts they don't like is, "fuck off fascist"

At the very mildest, some admit that they were misinformed about guns and gun violence, and that they never really did any research on it, and that's it. I've had several close liberal friends make firearm purchases and donate to pro 2A orgs after talking and coming to the range with me.

Others still vote D because of other political issues. Although a few switched to libertarian, green, independent and voted as such (which is better than D, imo). 2 close friends of mine from college switched to the R ticket from D, after a combination of personal conversation and current events. You can't win everyone, but you can make a damn potent argument to those willing to listen, esp. those who arn't pure zealots.

This is all that matters
Attached File

Data, stats, facts and figures support your position.

But if they have an ideological aversion to “gun rights” you will get nowhere.

You can only convince someone if you can make the pro-gun philosophy compatible with their existing worldview.

First, start by [initially] abandoning phrases related to the “2nd amendment” or the “constitution” or other similar approaches (no matter how valid) since they may not understand or may actually be against those due to whatever mainstream narrative and mainstream indoctrination they have swallowed.  If you start out talking about the “2nd amendment” they will likely tune out and their NPC programming will kick in.

Maybe start with the basics that we all are humans.

And humans have the right to defend themselves.

Humans have a right to life.

The only way to protect that is through the capability for defensive force.

We can rely on our hands but what about larger, stronger attackers?

How does a smaller or weaker person defend themselves?

Smaller men?  Children? Women? Elderly?

Should they go hand-to-hand combat with a 6’6” 250lb attacker or group of attackers?

“Guns are tools for the weak” is meant as an insult but it’s actually an accurate statement about the equalizing nature of a tool such as a gun.

Start talking about how guns were prohibited for slaves and blacks to keep them weak and vulnerable.  Then ask why our lawmakers want to do the same for blacks and all people today?

Lots of arguments like that.. check out NO GUNS FOR NEGROES on YouTube.

Good luck.

ETA:  also, keep it real.  Point out the fact that NONE of these politicians are here to help any of us.  Don’t go heavy pointing out how the Dems are crooked if you don’t do the same for the GOP and their corporate owners.  Point out the fact that the NRA actually supported most of the major  gun control laws on the books.  Point out the fact that the media and politicians use FEAR to control us, but we need to reject all that and start thinking for ourselves. etc

Again, good luck.

ETA2:  if they are religious, capitalize on that and show how guns are required to protect the innocent and keep the peace.  If they are anti-racist, point out the fact that the gun-rights are for all people and all races and the only people who are trying to prevent blacks from owning guns are Democrats and not the “racist” Republicans, so ask them to think about that contradictions and explain why that is.  Most gun laws put blacks in jail, why is that?  If they want to defund the police and abolish prisons... that’s fine (), but why do they simultaneously want to make MORE laws to disarm and put MORE people in prisons?  Just raise some contradictions and have a chill, friendly conversation and many follow-ups.  May take months or years for them to come around.  Good luck.

One more thing, pray they don’t red-flag your ass.

I really don't like the idea some people push here that we should just never try to convert anyone, never try to demonstrate that facts are on our side. YES, some people will not be convinced, that's for sure, but we'd never reach any of them if we don't try. Lots of fence-sitters can be reached, and sometimes just planting the seed in their minds is enough.

Giving up our country, our culture, our success, and our rights isn't something we should just meekly tuck tail between our legs and let happen.

The time for talk with the zealots is over. They see the white male/female christian gun owner and any permutations and combinations of these characteristics a final barrier to their utopia. This final barrier must be destroyed at any or all costs. They will lie cheat steal and kill to get to their promised land. Think Bolsheviks Oct 1917. Bend the knee or be eliminated.

Be the person that is the gun guy or gal. Then when people around you have questions they ask you. Don't lecture or berate, answer their damn questions. In other words establish a relationship as a person they feel comfortable asking questions of and that the information you provide them is reliable. Don't be throwing a lot of stats or arguing the constitution as such. In fact don't argue. Never argue with them. Instead challenge their beliefs by asking questions like, "Don't people have a right to defend themselves?" "What would you do if someone broke into your home and threatened you and your kids?" Then if they respond and indicate they are open to more information discuss it with them, don't try to win. Allow them to time to think it over and decide. Over time you stand the best chance of winning them over if you focus on having a conversation and providing information rather than focusing on winning a debate. If you try to win and or beat them over the head or ridicule them then you just push them further into their anti-gun stance and beliefs and they close up not hearing anything you say.

This works with a lot of people who are ignorant about guns and who have little to no experience with guns. Also taking someone shooting is a great way to help them get over the innate fear many people have about guns.

FBI UCR

In 2019 2.61% of homicides, including justifiable ones including those by police, were done using a long gun of which an AR15 is a fraction of that 2.6%

So what does that mean?

The current administration is putting its focus on how less than 2% of criminals obtain their firearm and on the 2.6% of firearms used in a Homicide of which a significant % is law enforcement shooting or other justified event.

2 and 2.6%

UBR and AWB based on 2 and 2.6%

And the yet people will fall all over themselves to support it.  Even when faced with the .gov own data.

I don't know what you're smoking, but you're wildly wrong, there.  

In any case, facts don't matter.  It's not a fight about the 2A; it's a fight about all the other shit they want to do, and guns are just in the way.  They'll blow off any facts as needed because the purpose of disarmament is to jackboot all over you and then kill you and take your shit.

You can't convince someone who has an emotionally based world view with facts and rational discussion.

FPNI
Facts mean nothing and actually they means less then nothing

OP needs to do his own research of the FBI uniform crime reports. It is the most comprehensive set of data on crime and weapons use for the United States.

That’s so 1994. We’re past debating homie.

Quote the 2nd amendment.  That is literally the only argument that anybody should ever make.  And it's not for hunting.  It's for watering the Tree of Liberty when necessary, and near as I can tell, it's pretty damn thirsty.

I always like to throw out the percentage of murders committed by black men between the ages of 15-55 and the percentage of the population they make up. Usually gets really interesting after that.

Bonus points if you get them to acknowledge certain “risky” groups shouldn’t own guns beforehand.

Gun cite

Gun facts

As others have mentioned, it's not about the facts.

If you want to try a different approach, argue that gun control is racist.  Unlike most things labeled racist, it actually is.  Jim Crow laws were the first examples of gun control and they were blatantly racist, just like poll taxes and literacy tests.  Virtually all gun control laws impede poor people and black/brown people but don't prevent the wealthy (or criminals) from acquiring guns.

Another angle can be tried if they smoke marijuana (and you do not).  If they think that (some) people should be allowed to own guns but think that the government should be able to regulate them, ask if they should be allowed to own a gun.  If they respond that they should be allowed to own a gun, inform them that the BATF has determined that since marijuana is illegal at the federal level, users may not possess firearms.

Oooh, the racism angle is perfect as well! But how do gun control laws impede blacks from having guns? Sorry, but this is an angle I've never heard of.

Oooh, the racism angle is perfect as well! But how do gun control laws impede blacks from having guns? Sorry, but this is an angle I've never heard of.

Lines have been drawn and everyone has picked a side by now. Even if you manage to convince a leftist to buy a gun and train, you are training a person who very likely would willingly harm you and yours. The education phase is over.

Debating with socialists is as about as effective as letting yourself believe that they play fair at election time.

I congratulate your good intentions OP, but I've never been able to sway anyone who uses "weapons of war", "for the children" and "no one needs ___ to hunt deer" one inch.

It's hard to convince someone who thinks they are morally superior to you and has more "common sense" than you do.

Not stats for debating exactly... but a good, related video.

This. Nothing you said would have convinced anyone anyway, so there's that.

However, if you're dead set on debating the issue, forget trying to defend gun ownership. If you start out on the defensive, you've already lost.
If your opponent thinks guns are such a problem, make them prove it. They wish to make illegal that which is currently legal. Why?
Make them prove their case, using logic, facts, reason, statistics, etc.

More people are murdered by blunt objects(hammers/bats ect) than by any type of rifle.

That last sentence.  They want "gun crimes" to be huge because it makes it easier to sell gun control to the sheep.

1.  You armed and trained the enemy, good for you.

2.  Did they continue voting for the people who would do everything in their power to restrict gun rights?

If 2 is correct, then refer back to 1 and pepper your angus.

Those liberals will gladly give up their guns in the future if their party asks them to.  And then they will point right at you and tell them that you are a gun owner.

I shut most of them down by simply asking what an "assault weapon" is. They are passionate about banning them, they want to make us criminals overnight for owning them, so I just say "okay, what is an assault weapon that should be banned? The name ar-15? That's an easy change."