don't focus on the murder rate (which is calculated differently in england than here anyway), focus on the overall violent crime rate...especially the home invasion and robbery rates.
england's rates are waaaaaayyyyyyy higher than ours. in addition, home invasions in england generally happen while people are home...because the robbers know that this means it is less likely that a security system will actually be turned on. while, here in the USA, very, very few home invasions happen while people are home...because the robbers know they might get shot.
here are some links for the stats to back up these arguments:
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/general-2...n-control.html
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/L...nsBurglars.htm
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/ic...000i/index.htm
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/ic...-icvs-app4.pdf
also, australia...which also has gun control to the point of nearly banning guns...has waaaaayyyyy higher violent crime rates than us.
the empiricial evidence is actually overwhelmingly in support of the idea that gun control does not lead to reduction in violent crime, and, in fact, often leads to increases in crime (as criminals know their vicitims will be unable to fight back).
show him some of the empirical evidence in the above links and then ask him to show you any empirical evidence that support his side. then, when he cannot, explain that public policy should be based on a rational and objective analysis of empirical data rather than emotional fantasy.
(ETA: also, ask him for citations to back up the statistical claims he has made that you posted above.
also explain that a 100lb woman should not be forced to try to fight off a 200lb would-be rapist with her bare hands because someone else might be more likely to commit suicide if they are allowed to have a gun in their home.)