1. So let me get this straight: The US
murder rate (not gun-related homicides, but homicides by any means) ranks 24th in the world behind Columbia, Mexico, numerous Central & South American nations, war-torn African nations, Russia, a spate of former Soviet Socialist Republics with more corruption than actual government in most of them, a teeny tiny island group in the pirate-infested waters off the horn of Africa, Jamaica, Thailand & Papua New Guinea? Wow, this is quite a club.
The case for gun legislation couldn't be stronger, based on these statistics. The only reason we're 24th on the list is because our gun homicide rate is so high. By reducing acts of gun violence in the U.S. through sensible legislation that reduces the number of guns that fall into the hands of criminals, we would find our overall murder rate fall closer to the rate among industrialized, liberal democratic nations that are more like us than any of the ones above us on this list.
Could the rate of civilian gun ownership have anything to do with our gun homicide rate being so high?
2. Violent crime decreased 65% from 1973 to 2009. I wonder why? What watershed judicial decision occurred in 1973 that could have impacted this statistic?
But aside from the fact that this really isn't a statistic about anything - because there are, in reality, so many reasons why this might be the case - is this supposed to make victims of violent crime feel better or something? How does that conversation go?
Person #1: "My family was killed." Person #2: "Well, fewer people have been victims of violent crime over the last 30 years." Person #1: "Fuck you, asshole, my family was killed!"
3. Murder rates (again, not gun-related homicides, but homicide by any means) have steadily decreased from 2006 to 2010, taking the biggest dip (8.1%) between 2008 and 2009.
These are pretty light statistics, and they don't clearly have anything to do with guns. If we want to know how guns factor into this trend, we would need to start by finding out how many of these murders are gun-related. We would also need to know where the gun homicides occurred, as they are most likely to occur in areas where the rate of gun ownership is highest. But in addition to this, I'd bet money that the rate of overall homicides is highest in areas where gun ownership is also high.
Another reason why
homicide rates might be lower across the board over the past several decades is that a violent crime is not considered a homicide unless someone actually dies. Every year, medical advances prevent more and more people from dying from gun shot wounds, but they don't stop people from being shot. If we truly want to understand violent crime and the extent to which guns play a role, we should look at gun injuries, not just deaths. We should also look at the number of violent crimes that are committed with guns vs. those that are committed at knife-point, etc.
4. A 60% decrease in multiple victim public shootings and a 78% decrease in victims per attack in states that allow conceal carry permits.
These statistics are literally meaningless. A 60% decrease? Decrease from what to what? From prior year rates per state the year before conceal/carry was made legal to the year after? From state to state? Deviation from the national average, which would be less than meaningless considering the distribution of US population.
5. All but one public shooting since 1950 occurred in places where it is illegal to carry guns.
Okay, so what places are we talking about? Schools? A lot of them have been at schools. You think the answer is that we need to allow guns in schools?
6. Prior to Newtown, the worst K-12 public shootings occurred in Germany & the UK.
How many other school shootings occurred in those countries in those same years? How many years did they go without having another school shooting at all? Does the single day body count matter more than the total number of people who died in all school shootings?
7. Oh, please. Lightning strikes, are you serious? First of all, this assumes that all demographic, socioeconomic and political factors among those 8 million people are uniform, which clearly isn't the case, as the international statistics above show. And did you notice this is the only "fact" on the list that doesn't include a source?
8. Again, these are overall
murder rates, not gun-related homicides. But besides that, this is supposed to be a side-by-side comparison of the U.S. vs. other developed European nations, so why are the U.S. stats not given for comparison? Hmmmm...one wonders?
9. "Banned" and "allowed." Those are the only options, right? It couldn't possibly be the case that the countries that "allow" them (the ones with lower murder rates) don't just allow them, but actually "regulate" them?
Not one of these "facts" is valid on its face. Each one has more holes than Swiss cheese. Have you any reasoned responses or "arguments" that address the obvious flaws?
