Well, now this is INTERESTING....

Found this little 'jewel' while doing some research. It was submitted, anonymously, to eHow. The link to the article can be accessed by clicking the title. It is difficult to ascertain if it was subversively written by a 'Pro-Gunner', as a ruse. Or, by a very ignorant Anti. (My guess is that it is a very well-versed 'Pro', that does an excellent job)! Either way, it provides some insight to what is going on in the war on our Freedom and Liberty:
.
"34,000 per year by eHow Friend
One of the most important things is to learn how to manipulate statistics to prove what you want. For instance, it's not enough to say that 1.3 or 1.4 children (age 0-12, or pre-teens) die per day from gun-related accidents. Expand the statistical bins to include not-only accidents, but at-risk youths involved in gang- or drug-behavior, and even young adults engaged in criminal activities. By extending the age limit for children to only 17 and including gang-related deaths, you can increase the statistic to 4.86 a day, as long as you ignore that fact that the at-risk children in this age range are usually breaking free from the family units, and generally starting to hang out with older, often troubled youths. By using larger statistical bins and by blurring the age ranges, especially the upper ends, you can easily statistically include children up to age 24. As long as you don't include that the vast majority of these gun-deaths are intentional gang- or drug-related activity, you can inflate the number up to 13 children per day, as many anti-civil rights groups have been able to do. Keep from mentioning that these are not accidental gun-deaths, and you can make the statistic sound truly impressive.
Another handy tool is to lump numbers without any analysis. At all costs, ignore or discourage analysis of the numbers. For instance; use diversion or even shouting if someone points out that over half (56%) of the 34,000 gun deaths per year includes suicides that would have taken place regardless of whether a firearm was involved or not. Stress that if guns weren't available, those gun deaths wouldn't have happened, rather than noting that those troubled individuals would have still have taken their own lives using drugs, asphyxiation, strangulation, intentional drowning, jumping from high places, etc.
Even if the person you are arguing with will not concede that firearm suicides are still gun deaths, even if they would have happened anyway, do not pursue the argument that if guns were really readily available, there would have been many more suicides -- this patently false, and even news media reporters will not follow it.
When exposed to someone who is armed with facts, it is best to disengage rather than discuss. Once someone starts using facts, you will only lose. One anti-gun activist mistakenly followed the argument of 34,000 gun deaths per year in a public place and wound up debating someone who resorted to facts in a cowardly fashion. Before the activist was aware, the audience had heard that the 19,000 would have committed suicide regardless of the method, and that number was lost as a valuable statistic. Unfortunately, the activist did not use diversion, emotion, shouting down his opponent, or any other method of regaining command of the situation, and instead continued to debate. After learning that the 34,000 should really have been 15,000, the crowd was then exposed to another uncomfortable fact that actually over 2/3's of the remaining number (15,000) were actually judged to be justifiable homicide, self-defense, or police defensive killings. The activist was then put in the uncomfortable position of trying to defend the appropriateness of allowing innocent citizens or police being murdered instead of defending themselves. As you can imagine, the crowd immediately realized the stupidity of this position, and the activist lost the second round. Unfortunately again, the activist decided to pursue the remaining 5,000 gun deaths and was again castrated by the facts when the person he was debating pointed out that the great majority of that number was actually criminal-on-criminal gun violence, and only a small percentage was actually gun violence against innocent people.
But, engaging in a discussion in which the opposition resorted to facts, our side lost and lost heavily. Any time an opponent starts to bring up actual facts, or resorts to phrases like "according to the FBI's UCR..." (unified crime report), or "if you look as the actual numbers...", your best bet is to divert the discussion into a one-sided shouting match, call the other person a baby-killer or a Nazi, or start making gratuitous assertions like "No one needs a machine gun to hunt deer!" Providing that you weren't talking about hunting in the first place, the opponent will then be forced into denying your attacks and you can then mount other straw-man attacks like "blood will run in the streets" or "allow 7-year-olds to bring guns to school!" With any luck, you can get the crowd caught up in mindless emotion and keep them from returning to logic and facts for the remainder of the discussion (or at least until you can sneak out).
In the event that you haven't lined up a media pawn from the beginning, immediately after the press shows up, start shouting that the opponent is in favor of children getting shot in their cribs and jump from one emotional appeal attack to another. It won't matter that you're making it up totally, the press is used to it and they will mainly be interested in the crowd response. Believe me, they are on your side and they will appreciate your attacks, often quoting you fully in their stories and taking only the smallest quote fragments from your opponent, out of context, for their stories."