[no-s]

a lot of what you’re citing seems disingenuous at best. I wasn’t going to respond because the platoon downvoting discourages further discussion, but some brave souls upvoted so I feel encouraged. You also didn’t directly address my actual points, but what you came up with is rather ludicrous and I’ll just point out a few more obvious absurdities.

For example the "3x more likely to have a gun stolen while carrying” actually isn’t a result from the source, in fact the source clearly states "we know almost nothing about the actual event” with respect to the actual theft. Perhaps you’re trying to assert “must possess firearm for it to be stolen?"

How can you legitimately assert that “good guy with a gun” is a fantasy when your own numbers show it’s a reality? 3% is non-zero! Even the police occasionally use firearms to stop bad guys, yet I’m sure a majority of police never use their firearms in the line of duty.

Do you also discount lives saved? Can you even quantify them? None of your sources seem to give a damn about it! Just last year an ordinary guy out at the mall stopped a spree killer ambush in a crowded food court. Your analysis would conclude not allowing concealed carry because of the risk of suicide is greater than the risk of spree-killing per person-mall-visit (probably true) despite the fact they are not equivalent for comparison. Thusly spree-killers should be (absurdly) unimpeded, because they are uncommon. Similarly we shouldn’t bother wearing seatbelts, because it is mostly unnecessary...?

My opinion is your apparent gun control ideation is mostly founded in nutty false equivalencies and I consider these hazardous to public and personal safety as a basis for law.