Any statistical Fallacy here?

A gun debate from myself to someone else is as follows:

Me:

As already has been pointed out the notion that almost half of 100, 000 deaths every year in relation to the gun crime is a small number in comparison the US population that is more than 300, 000 000 is not a good enough reason to warrant no attention whatsoever.

I'd also really like to see these findings on how casualties have decreased as since to my own findings and that of many others it's been on the incline within the last 5 to 10 years. I'd also like to know what specific workings your referring to? Thanks.

Person B:

There were 10,982 firearms homicides in the US in 2017, the most recent for which data is available. There was a small upturn in 2015 and 2016, but the rate has been going down since then. The numbers are as follows:

2017 - 10,982
2016 - 11,138
2015 - 9,778
2014 - 8,312
2013 - 8,454
2012 - 8,897
2011 - 8,653
2010 - 8,874
2009 - 9,199
2008 - 9,528
2007 - 10,129
2006 - 10,225
2005 - 10,158
2004 - 9,326
2003 - 9,659
2002 - 9,528
2001 - 8,890
2000 - 8,661
1999 - 8,259
1998 - 9,143
1997 - 10,729
1996 - 11,453
1995 - 13,790
1994 - 15,463

As I said, the numbers haven't been published for 2018, but the preliminary data shows a 6.7% drop in murders.

For a more extended view, see; www.debateisland.com/uplo. . .

Looking back in reflection I think some of what I said may have been factually incorrect. However, I am not sure if this would be a case of "lying with statistics" or some other statistical fallacy?

Thanks.

I am unclear as to what you said that was factually incorrect, but I am also unclear as to what you said :) Remember that "lying" with statistics would be more appropriately named "not telling the whole truth" with statistics. In a way, it is failing to see the bigger picture that tells a more complete story.

In terms of trends, more than data is sometimes needed to determine if we are seeing the beginning of a trend or an expected statistical variance. For example, why are those numbers so high in 2015-2017? Without more data, it is too difficult to tell why since they aren't far from the norm (I did not do the math, just eyeballing it). If I were looking at those numbers alone, I would not make any inference from them.

The introduction has comments not otherwise in evidence (I can't tell where the 100,000 vs 300,000,000 comes from)
The data presented was on murders, but "me" is referring to all related deaths and they are not the same.
There is potential for fallacy on both sides, imo, and the central problem is that you (both) are arguing at 'cross-purposes'.
For the argument to be most logical, a common basis for analysis needs to be defined/agreed-upon.