Your entire point relies exclusively on whataboutisms.

30,000+ people die every year as a direct result of guns and that nothing can be done and this isn't "significant".

Gun violence costs the US $229 billion every single year and by your own admission even a comparitivly small drop will have astoundingly large benefits.

Now lets breakdown your data because some of this has been calculated wrongly

Do the math: 0.00915% of the population dies from gun related actions each year.

Sure, but this time let’s do it properly:

33,636/317,312,072=.000106 which we would then move the decimal right twice to get the percentage -\> .0106% or rounded would be .011% of the American population died in 2013 to guns. That is 1 in every 9,434 Americans dying in one year to guns.

Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. It's not even a rounding error.

This here is probably the dumbest thing in this whole comment. That’s like saying the 2,977 people that were killed in 9/11 is nothing because Neptune is 2,671,896,127 miles away and 2,977 is nothing but a rounding error. That’s not how numbers work, a rounding error is only that big when you compare to big numbers. You have to compare it to other similar statistics.

For reference, that “small” number makes us one of if not the moist violent developed nation on Earth. Only third world countries and some developing countries are worse.

What is not insignificant, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths:

Why are you still using a rounded down 2013 number when the very next number you use is from 2015?

22,938 (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws (3)

There are so many things wrong with this it’s actually mind-blowing:

1) I’m guessing you misread your source again because it mentions absolutely nothing about suicide, homicides, or firearms.

2) You once again you divided using two entirely different types of numbers to get an inaccurate result. You have to use two numbers from the same year that isn’t rounded.

3) It’s weird you went and got another source because your first source includes list by both suicide and homicide. If you’re going to get another number, why not get the most recent ones? Such as: https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D76/D48F344 When you use proper numbers you gets suicides as being 59.97% in 2017.

Now we get to one of the big reasons why you’re wrong; this statement:

22,938 (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws (3)

One of the big problems of your argument is you didn’t cite any research that says suicide is unaffected by gun laws. You just cited a bunch of random numbers (wrongly) for no reason without giving any actual justification. My guess is you wanted to cite a lot of stuff so it looked like you knew what you were talking about.

Gun laws do affect suicide rates.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24054955 NCBI research:

RESULTS: Among the 27 developed countries, there was a significant positive correlation between guns per capita per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths (r = 0.80; P <.0001). In addition, there was a positive correlation (r = 0.52; P = .005) between mental illness burden in a country and firearm-related deaths. However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (r = .33), or between mental illness and crime rate (r = 0.32; P = .11). In a linear regression model with firearm-related deaths as the dependent variable with gun ownership and mental illness as independent covariates, gun ownership was a significant predictor (P <.0001) of firearm-related deaths, whereas mental illness was of borderline significance (P = .05) only.

CONCLUSION: The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1661390

Conclusions: A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/

For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

So no, "gun violence" isn't 30,000 annually, but rather 5,577... 0.0017% of the population.

1) You didn’t even bother citing where you got the 5,577.

2) According to the CDC, that number is 14,542 which does not include law enforcement or accidental for 2017. Out of 39,773 that’s 36.6% of the total gun deaths. That also gives us .0045% of the US population died from gun homicide in 2017. You were somehow off by a factor of 4.

Still too many? Let's look at location:

596 (10%) - St Louis, MO (6)

653 (11%) - Detroit, MI (6)

1,527 (27%) - Chicago, IL (6)

That's over 40% of all gun crime. In just 3 cities.

You completely misread your own source. All of those numbers are for two years. Also, how did you get the Chicago area being 27% of all gun homicides in the US. Based on the numbers from your source, the Chicago area accounts for 5.57%, not 27%.

Wait, did you divide the number of deaths in Chicago across two year by your made up 5,577? Why not use the numbers from your own source?

This leaves 2,801 for for everywhere else in America... about 56 deaths per state. Obviously some States have higher rates than others

No, all those cities together make up 10.13% of homicides. That leaves 89.88% soared across everywhere else. Keep in mind two of those cities are in Republican states with loose gun laws.

But what about other deaths each year?

What about them? Why are you trying to deflect away from the topic? This is a very poor argument, you’re trying to set up a False Dilemma as though we can only do one thing at a time.

37,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (9)

Yeah, and you know why that number is at a 62 year low?

Because we require you require you to register your vehicle if you want to drive, you’re forced to have insurance, you're forced to take classes in order to drive, and you’re required to have certain safety features as well as (depending on the state) yearly inspections. Hmm, that’s a good idea, maybe we should apply that to guns!

You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

You have to account for the fact that hospitals also overwhelmingly are more likely to save someone with a medical condition. Someone with cancer wouldn’t be better off just roaming around in Chicago versus getting medical treatment.

The math is wrong again. Even if you discount the number of people that are living because of a hospital, hospitals would still be safer.

According to the CDC, there were 883.7 million physician visits in the US plus the number of emergency room visits by your third source 136.943 million divided by your 250,000 number (assuming that number is accurate) gives us a dying rate of .024% Chance of dying versus .03% for Chicago homicides.

TLDR: The math is wrong, the sources jump all over the place, the claims are faulty and mistakenly cite numbers wrong and all this really amounts to is one long sad "What About X" statement brought to us via the think tank that is r/conservative.

Wall O text incoming

One of the most pervasive things I keep seeing involves this: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

This here and demonstrates a perfect misuse of the report. He calls (and the whole thread is doing this) as a study and research. In particular this is quoted:

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals

This is what it actually looks like:

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a)

You may have noticed that he takes a very small quote of an entire sentence which is itself an entire paragraph and conveniently leaves off all citations along with misrepresenting the numbers "CDC findings". The CDC itself has done no research itself into defensive gun use hence the reports name: Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.

Like wise his second cherry picked quote here does the exact same thing:

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies

Here is what the actual text looks like:

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

As you can clearly see the citations of the actual research nearly all involves Garry Kleck, which is I find hilarious because he admitted that most DGUs in his survey would have been considered illegal.

When you consider how thoroughly Garry Klecks work on DGU has been so thoroughly picked apart (the CDC report acknowledges DGU stats are contented but the immediate quote is left off) you can see why gun proponents would want to leave his name off and brandish the CDCs instead.

Also worth noting that Garry Klecks work is an estimate based off of a survey that he extrapolated into a total for national DGUs. The data is also quite old and was a random dial phone survey. The starting estimate itself? 66 people reported using a gun for defensive people out of 5000 = 1.3 million DGUs. Garry Klecks work has been proven to be mathematically impossible.

On a related note this report is often brought out to "disprove" the notion that the CDC is prevented from studying gun violence. The report contains absolutely no original research or claims. All stats are cited and there are no findings beyond "this is what we need to look at". These recommendations were submitted btw to Government along with a request for funding. The answer was that they were allocated a grand total of $0 to carry it out.