Sometimes in casual conversation, a person will state something similiar to the following:
Having a gun increases the possibility that someone will get hurt.
If the gun were not there, nobody could get hurt by it.
These statements aren't concise and bait people. A blanket statement requires a blanket answer. "That's like, your opinion, man." IF and COULD are not grounds for legislation (although that's exactly what happens.)
When people mention the numbers, and start playing that game, you can retort with "Over 500,000 people die of cancer a year. Almost 30,000 people die from accidental falls. We're talking about what, 10,000 people killed by guns, either criminally, negligently, defensively, or in the line of duty." Put it into perspective. Seriously. 30,000 people die from being unable to navigate steps, sidewalks, or a stepladder. Shouldn't we be worried about the bigger numbers, rather than the .15% (death by rifles) of the .0051%(death by firearm)? (whatever those deaths come out to be, percentage-wise).
I know the usual cliches:
when seconds count, the police are only minutes away;
it's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need it and not have it;
that gun is not going to hurt anybody that doesnt need hurtin';
Their point is that since a gun exists in the area,
it's technically possible that it could come out of the holster (how doesn't matter), and be fired.
If it were not there, that would not be possible.
Those retorts are just as cliched as the original statements. Rather than responding cliche to cliche, just reply "You don't know what you're talking about." End the conversation. Hyperbole and ignorance is no reason to get into a debate unless the person really wants to be made a fool of.