Looking for gun statistics, not from Dr. Lotts site

Hello all,

so I have a question. I’m in a friendly debate with an anti-gunner. And when I started providing statistics from CrimePreventionResearchCenter, she was able to discredit Dr. Lotts work in such a way, that I can’t really cite his work in our conversations any longer. So I wanted to ask if there were any sites, independent of Dr. Lott, I could find shooting and statistics on. Both good and bad btw. I would like to do my own research, but I don’t even know where to begin looking for information on this.


post the info here, as in what was the retort?
sometimes you need to produce overall numbers as in total versus firearms, plus homicide versus murder versus suicide.


Look at the FBI numbers that should give you a good start. You just have to get deep enough to get past the political bs.


Its more that she produced a site which showed he skews his results, instead of publishing results both good and bad. When I went to verify this information, I found a few dozen sites all providing data that he has mis-represented data. This makes me think he can no longer be trusted. Which is why I don’t think I can cite his information any longer. Maybe not all his data is skewed, but there’s enough that is as to make me think I need to do my own research.

So far, her last retort was about how many mass shootings we’ve had as compared to Australia. And how the only real way to stop the mentally deranged from gaining guns, is to simply remove guns from the hands of the population at large.

Most of my information has actually come from Dr. Lotts site. Now I’m left floundering where to find information in general. Raw data is what I need.


and the other data - who says it is correct?
ask her why this fixation on mass shootings - what about mass killings, you have to establish first the apple orchard (criminal homicide) and not red apples versus yellow.
Australia still has mass shootings
Now here something that is something - ask her about mental health and the correlation with non-gang multiple victim homicide (notice that, because a white van can and has killed more people). You will notice that most mass killings have ended with the killer either taking their life or it being ended by police.


Have you asked her how she plans to remove the guns from the criminals that actually commit the murders? The anti gun people always have a plan for disarming the law abiding citizen, that is no danger to the public, but they always fail to explain their well thought out, detailed plan to keep guns out of the hands of murderers. My conversations with anti gun people never make it past that question.


Is she hot? Do you have a shot with her? If not, its probably not worth wasting your breath arguing with someone whos mind cant be changed. If she is hot, maybe post her pic here & we’ll decide for you if the “argument” is worth pursuing. We’re here for YOU buddy😉


Quite some time ago, I realized that much of ‘the debate’ is centered on proving the other side wrong, by citing sources on your own side to show the other side is not telling the whole truth. The problem is that the other side then responds by citing sources on their side, to show that your sources are not telling the whole truth. Of course, all this “they’re not being completely honest” can have some dishonesty mixed in to exaggerate things, eventually degrading everything into “my sources are right, and your sources are wrong”.

How to deal with this conundrum? The answer is surprisingly simple. Just approach the debate with the assumption that every single source on your side, is completely worthless. They are going to spend a lot of effort in casting doubts on sources on your side, so why waste your time in defending them? Of course, that doesn’t mean you just give up.

The other side is fond of starting statements with “According to the CDC…”, so maybe it’s a good idea to take a look at what the CDC is working with. In the old usenet days, the CDC did provide some raw data, but they weren’t too helpful. Now, things are much easier.

The biggest problem with the CDC’s WISQARS system, is that it lumps criminal homicide and justified homicide (such as self-defense) into one category. Even with that limitation, it does provide a handy quick reference about statistics on firearm related deaths (the system also has a section on non-fatal injuries that needed medical treatment). So when the other side makes some claim about children being accidentally shot, you can look up the CDC’s data and provide the actual numbers.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports is another useful source.

The biggest drawback to the UCRs, is that it’s not as handy as the CDC’s WISQARS, so you’ll have to do a little more digging through their numbers.

When the other side makes a claim, look at the source they are citing. If they don’t cite a source, ask for one. Then look for data directly from that source. Quite often, they will take statements or data out of context, and looking at the source will show how they skewed things.

You can also search for other sources on their side, that are making similar claims. Once they start skewing things, you should be able to find contradicting claims on at least some of the topics, because they are each trying to make the ‘out of context’ claims apply to their individual points. Which would be more effective in responding to their quoting a claim from the Brady Campaign? …citing something from the NRA that says their claim is not using the right numbers? …or citing something from the Violence Policy Center that says their claim is not using the right numbers?


and again to goes down to simply definition
total homicides versus pointed sticks

a simple analogy, like I mentioned to look at the whole orchid not just the one apple tree, is they like to cite Japan has a low firearm suicides rate, and they like to point out it is due to gun control and it is true - however they have a rather high rate of overall suicide compared to North America.
In Canada they do not lump suicides, non criminal firearm deaths other than criminal, death by firearm is only one third of the total. Of that one total about 80% are gang related. Much as in the USofA the high percentage is handguns not long guns or “Assault Rfiles”, and there is a certain very high number which again is gang related.
And as to mass killing tell her about a recent school killing where 22 kindergarten students were killed, China and it was done with a knife.
oh and give her this little tidbit to gnaw on

evil will use what ever weapon is available

how ever the common thread isn’t the weapon used but mental health.


My usual quote when trying to have someone understand something they don’t want too…sometimes it just can’t be done mate!!


here print this little tidbit and with some different coloured hyliters mark gang / mental health etc.


Damn good advice, lets do this.


God Bless your efforts,

I’d just offer last rites and move on.


@LonewolfMcQuade & @Caw Lol, she’s gay, engaged, and lives across the country from me. So I don’t think I have a shot with her. :grin: Though she is cute.

And debates like this are actually good for you. They force you to challenge your beliefs, and re-examine yourself. Plus I actually think she’s just a good person, if a bit misguided, and I enjoy talking with her.

Her assertion is that, the only way to completely stop gun violence, is to disarm everyone who isn’t military. Not even the police can have guns. So far, she hasn’t actually presented any statistics on her side though.

@JPN & @srdiver thanks for the links & points! I’ll be sure to give the sites a thorough read.


“They” act purely off emotion and do not like logic. Talking to these types about the 2A is pointless. Its like talking to the microwave about why you use a surge protector, imo. Try to avoid gun talk and see if you can get her to open up about her sex life or something, that should be a little more entertaining.


Sounds like a challenge! The 3 of you all locked in a hotel somewhere for as long as it takes for you to convince them to be pro gun. Once you accomplish that, you work “hard” on convincing the two they like men again. You’d be killing 2 birds with 1 stone! Dammit @mattig89ch , take one for our side! You could be saving the 2nd amendment for all of us!!!


I agree

1 Like
  1. If the military has guns, then it will be impossible to disarm everyone else. Thefts from the few legal sources will still feed the black market, as demonstrated by Chicago and Brazil.
  1. The majority of firearms related deaths in the US, are suicides (easy to confirm with the CDC’s WISQARS system). Japan serves as a clear example of how removing guns will not stop suicides, as their laws have almost eliminated civilian owned guns, but their suicide rate is high. They got to this point of ‘almost no guns’ by having started restricting ‘peasant’ access to them, a few centuries ago. Even with that, they do still have a few firearm related deaths, each year. They also seem to still have some problems with knives being used to kill people.
  1. China seems to be even more strict about guns, than Japan. No guns, so rampage killers use knives, meat cleavers, axes, and even hammers for their killing rampages in schools and other places. The guns are not the cause, but mental health can at least partially explain some ‘mass shootings’ and killing rampages.

@LonewolfMcQuade, sounds like picking a new pope

1 Like

Try the CDC