Where do you guys go to get gun related statistics?  Was in a really good convo with someone about the magazine ban that lead to all types of gun related issues.  I really think I got the person thinking in the right light about our 2nd Amendment rights and how this new attempt to cripple the law abiding citizen won't benefit the community in any way (He was originally more on the "no dog in the fight" side of the fence). Throughout the conversation, he asked where I got all my information from and I told him that the only way to get real facts was to look up reliable source and not any conventional new media outlet, like a CNN, or NBC, because most of their data through "research" is agenda driven to sway the public or the casual information seeker in a certain direction.  So I told him that I went with the FBI.  I found a really good breakdown on the FBI website a while back.  It was the most reliable and least bias outlet that I could think of at the time.  But now I can't seem to find my way back to it, trying to navigate that new site is proving to be difficult.  The site is seems to be set up differently than it was when I first saw the data. 

So, I was just wondering if anyone else has a good source of gun related data that I could use to do research... Mahalo in advance!!!

All depends on what you're looking for.

Studies tend to have more current data.  Part of the problem there is they tend to nudge readers to make conclusions the data doesn't support, but which intuitively will be drawn anyway since the human mind will look for causation when given a set of data surrounding an event like a mass shooting.  You have to learn to stop and ask the right questions before gleaning answers from studies.  The most telling questions to ask are, "Which real world murders would have been stopped if we take the data presented and use it to apply new laws?  What would it take to prevent the next one, assuming the data identifies a viable problem to be solved?"

In my experience, Googling a specific question is better than having a set list of sources.  The information changes often.  Google helps me stay more current.

There's one insurmountable problem that no study has ever been able to give data leading us to a workable solution:  What is the best solution when all other solutions aimed at prevention of violence fails?  The answer for me has always been to be prepared to meet force with equal or greater force. 

Keeping firearms out of the wrong hands sounds nice, but reality makes this an impossibility.  Can we reduce the number of "bad" people with guns?  Sure.  But, do those solutions come with a side-effect of also disarming law abiding people, too?  If so, then you're intentionally diminishing the effectiveness of the only solution proven to work when all others fail.

John Lott’s site is pretty good. Steven crowder has good videos o YouTube .

I like Crowder, listen to 'Louder with Crowder' all the time! It's amazing that a Canadian loves the United States and all it's freedoms and opportunities to prosper more than some americans...

Depends on how detailed you want.  More detailed info like mags and crime are usually not government done studies.

FBI and CDC are my top 2.  It names deaths by gun type (handgun, all rifle, shotgun).  So if you're looking for AR15 specific, it won't be there.

Then I use our AG website.  But same as the FBI and CDC, they don't go into specifics.  But we had 1 rifle death in 2018 in Hawaii.  IIRC it was that guy from Delaware who escaped from death row.  He was present at the time of the shooting.

Sites like MDA and EveryTown get their info from unreliable sources. 

Scientists get paid to lie these days. Sad but true, which is where the anti-vax movement came from after one too many people died from FDA-approved drugs. It does not help the conversation around climate change either.

Scientists get paid to lie these days. Sad but true, which is where the anti-vax movement came from after one too many people died from FDA-approved drugs. It does not help the conversation around climate change either.

Don't even start with the climate change topic.

Depends on how detailed you want.  More detailed info like mags and crime are usually not government done studies.

FBI and CDC are my top 2.  It names deaths by gun type (handgun, all rifle, shotgun).  So if you're looking for AR15 specific, it won't be there.

Then I use our AG website.  But same as the FBI and CDC, they don't go into specifics.  But we had 1 rifle death in 2018 in Hawaii.  IIRC it was that guy from Delaware who escaped from death row.  He was present at the time of the shooting.

Sites like MDA and EveryTown get their info from unreliable sources.

I like going to the FBI statistics as well because we are actually getting reported numbers, not studies which one side or the other can manipulate. It also helps stamp down claims that the numbers are made up by some pro-gun group, I just point out that these are FBI numbers not some gun group survey.

That's what I was looking for at the time. Not so much a study, but more along the lines of a statistical sense, basically a tally. How many crimes from this year to that, how many of this type and that type of crime, and so on. Strictly recorded facts with no opinion needed.

That's what I was looking for at the time. Not so much a study, but more along the lines of a statistical sense, basically a tally. How many crimes from this year to that, how many of this type and that type of crime, and so on. Strictly recorded facts with no opinion needed.

The problem with raw statistics is it's too easy to mistake correlation for causation, which is what drives people down the rabbit hole of gun control.  Looking for coincidental commonalities isn't the same as doing the difficult (and politically unpopular) task of seeking to define actual problems that, if solved, would have a real effect on all crimes of violence ... not just "gun" crimes.

Focusing on the gun is the first step toward ignoring the real problems.

You cannot argue facts. What you're talking about happens when people ignore facts and tell partial truths with "facts" given to them by news bias outlets. Facts are not left to interpretation. For example, 30,xxx gun deaths a year is a partial fact given to the public by most media options. The real "raw" facts show that 20,xxx are due to suicides. Another is "mass shootings". The media, be it social media or national news, dont show the "raw" facts. They show "xx dead" or "AR15". They do not show that mass shootings accounted for less than two tenths of 1% (0.2%) of all homicides in the United States between 2000 and 2016. Gun control and new laws dont sit well with these actual truths.

You cannot interpret or misconstrue facts. You can, on the other hand, confuse and misinform with half-truths presented in super biased studies by organizations with heavy influence.

You cannot argue facts. What you're talking about happens when people ignore facts and tell partial truths with "facts" given to them by news bias outlets. Facts are not left to interpretation. For example, 30,xxx gun deaths a year is a partial fact given to the public by most media options. The real "raw" facts show that 20,xxx are due to suicides. Another is "mass shootings". The media, be it social media or national news, dont show the "raw" facts. They show "xx dead" or "AR15". They do not show that mass shootings accounted for less than two tenths of 1% (0.2%) of all homicides in the United States between 2000 and 2016. Gun control and new laws dont sit well with these actual truths.

You cannot interpret or misconstrue facts. You can, on the other hand, confuse and misinform with half-truths presented in super biased studies by organizations with heavy influence.

Thats where youre wrong buck-o. U can argue stats and emotion will win. This is what the anti 2a groups use and rely on. And the morons that support them.

The chief says the 2 numbers on her badge justify the mag limit. Her intel must be better than ours on what rifle was most likely used.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Focusing on the gun is the first step toward ignoring the real problems.

Bingo! That is a great point. Raw stats are definitely a problem. One of the biggest ones is the “29x (I think) more likely to shoot yourself or a loved one if you have a gun in your house”. It’s such crap because the data being used to justify that claim includes irresponsible people leaving loaded handguns around and suicides. So basically if your not an idiot and if your not suicidal then those statistics don’t apply to you. Yet they use it as a general rule regarding firearm ownership.

Bingo! That is a great point. Raw stats are definitely a problem. One of the biggest ones is the “29x (I think) more likely to shoot yourself or a loved one if you have a gun in your house”. It’s such crap because the data being used to justify that claim includes irresponsible people leaving loaded handguns around and suicides. So basically if your not an idiot and if your not suicidal then those statistics don’t apply to you. Yet they use it as a general rule regarding firearm ownership.

That's not a fact. That's a probability. And that's where problems start. Its like odds in gambling. Definitely not fact.

You cannot argue facts. You can choose to ignore them. If I show you a red cup, you cannot argue the color of that cup. You can argue what facts are more applicable to achieve the result that works. Thats where opinion plays a role. You cannot argue straight facts. What anti 2a orgs do is not argue facts. What they do is feed fear or even sometimes lie about the real numbers to get a result. And you're correct. Majority of anti-gunners are fueled by emotion. Something either happened to them or someone they know to create the view on guns that they have. And it truly is a tragedy. But they have to look at how many lives guns have saved, which is reportedly in the millions over the years btw, in similar situations and the laws that make it harder for those situations to have favorable endings.

And I know you not saying the chief has better intel than the FBI. AR15's account for less than one percent of homicides according to them. So as far as what rifle is most likely used, it's not that one...

That's not a fact. That's a probability. And that's where problems start. Its like odds in gambling. Definitely not fact.

You cannot argue facts. You can choose to ignore them. If I show you a red cup, you cannot argue the color of that cup. You can argue what facts are more applicable to achieve the result that works. Thats where opinion plays a role. You cannot argue straight facts. What anti 2a orgs do is not argue facts. What they do is feed fear or even sometimes lie about the real numbers to get a result. And you're correct. Majority of anti-gunners are fueled by emotion. Something either happened to them or someone they know to create the view on guns that they have. And it truly is a tragedy. But they have to look at how many lives guns have saved, which is reportedly in the millions over the years btw, in similar situations and the laws that make it harder for those situations to have favorable endings.

And I know you not saying the chief has better intel than the FBI. AR15's account for less than one percent of homicides according to them. So as far as what rifle is most likely used, it's not that one...

The problem with that line of reasoning is as follows:

-  We need to ban AR15s.  It's the weapon of choice by mass shooters, because it holds high capacity mags, and it uses high-powered ammo.

-  Facts: 
    a) Most mass shootings have been committed with hunting rifles, shotguns and semi-auto handguns.  For years, the Virginia Tech shooting held the record for most fatalities and involved two handguns -- a Glock 9mm and a Walther .22.
    b) Rifles, including AR15s, account for such a small percentage of firearms used in crimes, the CDC even said a ban had, and will have, no discernible impact on "gun crimes" either good or bad.
    c) AR15 ammo is actually low-powered when compared with other rifles and shotguns.  All handgun calibers are anemic when compared to almost any rifle.  The .223/5.56 round is anemic when compared with shotgun slugs and 30 caliber or higher rifle ammo.  The effectiveness of ammo is all relative and is a non-argument when singling out a given type of firearm.

-  Well, we have to do SOMETHING!  If there's no difference in the firearms and ammo, then we need to ban it all.

The problem with that line of reasoning is as follows:

-  We need to ban AR15s.  It's the weapon of choice by mass shooters, because it holds high capacity mags, and it uses high-powered ammo.

-  Facts: 
    a) Most mass shootings have been committed with hunting rifles, shotguns and semi-auto handguns.  For years, the Virginia Tech shooting held the record for most fatalities and involved two handguns -- a Glock 9mm and a Walther .22.
    b) Rifles, including AR15s, account for such a small percentage of firearms used in crimes, the CDC even said a ban had, and will have, no discernible impact on "gun crimes" either good or bad.
    c) AR15 ammo is actually low-powered when compared with other rifles and shotguns.  All handgun calibers are anemic when compared to almost any rifle.  The .223/5.56 round is anemic when compared with shotgun slugs and 30 caliber or higher rifle ammo.  The effectiveness of ammo is all relative and is a non-argument when singling out a given type of firearm.

-  Well, we have to do SOMETHING!  If there's no difference in the firearms and ammo, then we need to ban it all.

So we're in agreement. My original post, and the reason for the post, was to find a reliable source for facts to show an inquiring mind an unbiased platform to inform himself. You have listed facts. These are irrefutable because it is data that is reported (except for the part about the CDC making the statement about impact, that is a educated conclusion that they made, based on facts).

The last line in your post shows the part that CAN be argued.  It is the use of the facts as it applies to decision making. This is where anti-gun advocates make the decision to attack the gun, and not the person using the gun, trying to use information in an otherwise uninformed environment to push more gun control.

But if you ask a pro-gunner and an anti-gunner to tell you how many deaths there were last year by whatever means, they will have the same answer because that would be factual...

So we're in agreement. My original post, and the reason for the post, was to find a reliable source for facts to show an inquiring mind an unbiased platform to inform himself. You have listed facts. These are irrefutable because it is data that is reported (except for the part about the CDC making the statement about impact, that is a educated conclusion that they made, based on facts).

The last line in your post shows the part that CAN be argued.  It is the use of the facts as it applies to decision making. This is where anti-gun advocates make the decision to attack the gun, and not the person using the gun, trying to use information in an otherwise uninformed environment to push more gun control.

But if you ask a pro-gunner and an anti-gunner to tell you how many deaths there were last year by whatever means, they will have the same answer because that would be factual...

Anti-gunners have an agenda, which goes way beyond beliefs or truth.  Facts will never change their minds.  IF they can't attack the facts with opposing information, they'll attack the source -- even if the source is above bias or reproach.

"The NRA must have paid you to do that so-called study."

The problem with that line of reasoning is as follows:

-  We need to ban AR15s.  It's the weapon of choice by mass shooters, because it holds high capacity mags, and it uses high-powered ammo.

-  Facts: 
    a) Most mass shootings have been committed with hunting rifles, shotguns and semi-auto handguns.  For years, the Virginia Tech shooting held the record for most fatalities and involved two handguns -- a Glock 9mm and a Walther .22.
    b) Rifles, including AR15s, account for such a small percentage of firearms used in crimes, the CDC even said a ban had, and will have, no discernible impact on "gun crimes" either good or bad.
    c) AR15 ammo is actually low-powered when compared with other rifles and shotguns.  All handgun calibers are anemic when compared to almost any rifle.  The .223/5.56 round is anemic when compared with shotgun slugs and 30 caliber or higher rifle ammo.  The effectiveness of ammo is all relative and is a non-argument when singling out a given type of firearm.

-  Well, we have to do SOMETHING!  If there's no difference in the firearms and ammo, then we need to ban it all.

Exactlly.

Go for rifles 1st. Handguns to follow. Long term plan.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Thats where youre wrong buck-o. U can argue stats and emotion will win. This is what the anti 2a groups use and rely on. And the morons that support them.

I don't think its fair to call them morons, at least not all of them. Some misinformed or not informed and others informed but just have a different opinion derived from the facts but not morons.

I don't think its fair to call them morons, at least not all of them. Some misinformed or not informed and others informed but just have a different opinion derived from the facts but not morons.

When u tell law makers and HPD major neilson that according to AG/FBI stats in hawaii, there was only 1 rifle death in 2018, 1 in 2017, and 2 in 2016, but yet he says a mag limit is necessary to save the lives of people. I call that moronic.

And for each death, there was no info on what type of magazine was used.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk