Positive Gun Statistics for Reference

[NastyNate]

I'm having a hard time finding current, positive gun statistics that further our cause. Good stats from scholarly resources are critical when waging debates in person and online. I'd like for this thread to be a resource that we can use for reference when trying to educate ourselves, others, antis, etc so please add your positive statistics that come from credible sources, ie, journals, publications, .gov websites, etc.

Although, this isn't a scholarly source, the linked references are:

http://americangunfacts.com/

This is the most comprehensive, up to date stats that I could find.

Please share yours.

[Librarian]

Selling guns based on statistics is a losing battle. Stats are convincing only to those who are willing to be convinced.

Match that to two facts: 1) no one knows how many guns there are in the US civil population, or how they are distributed and (2) no one can agree on how many times guns may be 'used' in self defense in the US.

[NastyNate]

Selling guns based on statistics is a losing battle. Stats are convincing only to those who are willing to be convinced.

Match that to two facts: 1) no one knows how many guns there are in the US civil population, or how they are distributed and (2) no one can agree on how many times guns may be 'used' in self defense in the US.

I'd have to disagree with you that stats don't have an impact. I agree that some people will not be convinced but if you provide them with facts, I would think that it would leave them with some food for thought. I do agree that the lack of data on distribution and unreported incidences of self defense create a complex situation.

I often hear of this stat or that stat from our talking heads, Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, Alex Jones, etc but where is the data that these guys are referencing? I also hear time and time again that liberal logic is rooted in emotion and lacks factual evidence, although I tend to agree with this, what makes our argument any different if we can't provide any data to solidify our points? Every one talks about crushing the anti argument with facts, but where are the facts, what data, research are you referencing, or is everyone just letting the talking heads create their arguments?

[NastyNate]

BTT, c'mon guys, you can do better than that.

NastyNate

[Mitch]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

http://www.gunfacts.info/

[NastyNate]

Thanks Mitch!

NastyNate

[NastyNate]

http://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewsocialtrends.org%2F2013%2F05%2F07%2Fgun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware%2F&h=DAQFg_Wh4&enc=AZOqfzAkvQbbEehIyk53aCaJNuwjcZkpber5WWV9edhNtmjur7B_pjvEtJ1K28WgQIU&s=1

NastyNate

[Mitch]

Thanks mitch!

Here's another:

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter...oss-countries/

"CPRC was founded by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr . . ."

Personally, I wouldn't quote any statistic by John Lott. He might be right or he might be wrong, but he is anything but objective and he has disgraced himself with on-line sockpuppetry.

[NastyNate]

"CPRC was founded by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr . . ."

Personally, I wouldn't quote any statistic by John Lott. He might be right or he might be wrong, but he is anything but objective and he has disgraced himself with on-line sockpuppetry.

True. Edited.

NastyNate

[Librarian]

"CPRC was founded by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr . . ."

Personally, I wouldn't quote any statistic by John Lott. He might be right or he might be wrong, but he is anything but objective and he has disgraced himself with on-line sockpuppetry.

He has certainly made problems for himself, but why do you say "he is anything but objective"?

[Mitch]

He has certainly made problems for himself, but why do you say "he is anything but objective"?

Because he has an axe to grind: he is out trying to prove the efficacy of armed personal defense. I don't trust his numbers anymore.

My favorite statistics are those that are collected simply as a matter of course (like the CDC and the FBI), or in research that was truly objective, or - as in the case of Gary Kleck's original studies - attempting to prove the opposite. Then your sources are unimpeachable.

[Noble Cause]

"CPRC was founded by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr . . ."

Personally, I wouldn't quote any statistic by John Lott. He might be right or he might be wrong, but he is anything but objective and he has disgraced himself with on-line sockpuppetry.

The online sockpuppetry was idiotic, and gave the anti-Second Amendment
crowd plenty of ammunition to dismiss Lott's work, even if the veracity
of a given statement was true.

I'm still willing to listen to what he has to say, but with the proverbial grain of
salt.

Prof. Gary Kleck filings on SFVPOA v SF are an interesting read... He basically
eviscerates Prof John Donohue's nonsensical babblings:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Supplemental-Declaration-of-Gary-Kleck-In-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Declaration-of-Gary-Kleck-In-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

So yeah, Prof. Kleck is Da Man.


Noble