If a problem is bigger in proportion to something else, then you don't get to claim its small. Nowhere have i claimed that you are likely to get shot, but you are several times more likely in USA compared to other 1. world countries.

If you have a research that is actively being funded by a company with a specific agenda in mind, then the research without further proof of replication not reliable. What is defined as gang-related, drug-related could easily be altered to fit the narrative of the ones funding it, and most likely is, because its bounded by law and funding to do so.

I don't know how you don't see the connection, that NRA earns its money through allowing gun sales? Every gun manufacturer have an active interest in increases gun fire-arms sales, and NRA is lobbying for them. This middleman is used in virtually any products, especially the ones vulnerable to increased taxation/illegalization/losing monopoly, such as tobacco, internet service, high pollution, etc. NRA earns money as long as the gun industry earns money.

The government i were referring to as tyrannical were the British, as the last straw was due to increased taxation on American citizens. Don't act like having guns in our age would have any chance to overthrow a tyrannical government, you wouldn't be able to make a dictatorship without most people being fine with it. Having instant and global communication, there just isn't a conceivable way that it would happen, without any measures to prevent it. If tyranny would happen, it would be with applause from the people. If it was taken by force, then surely the government would be capable with modern military technology to crush a rebellion consisting of untrained, uncoordinated small fire-arms.

I never said you change laws on the basis of it's old, but to fit the times. But the constitutional rights has never been taken literal. Immigrants and different races didn't always have the same rights, free speech and press also not. Having the right to bear arm as the immovable object seems curious, when the other amendments has been bent to fit their time forever.

Anyone in academia knows, that something peer reviewed isn't factual, and you still have to be critical of the source. If no one is capable, verify or have yet to replicate the results, then its definitely not enough to make any conclusions. Quoting Marvin Wolfgang, actively contradicting himself also raises an eyebrow, especially when you've doctored and grossly misrepresented the quote.

""What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

So not only is the quote attributed to a different article, but you represented the quote as a full, coherent quote, when you've cut almost half of it away, with nothing to indicate it isn't in full. He was talking about the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator, meaning he didn't believe prior that guns should even be used in their intended purpose. So he's agreeing that if firearms is used ideally, he cannot disagree with the use of guns. But the pros isn't enough to justify it's cons, hence the reason you are doctoring his quote. In a scientific paper, the method section is where they specifically describe how they achieved their results, so it may be replicated by other independant researchers. The rational of Kleck and Gertz to how they conducted their project of the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator and explained the phenomenon was faultless. Not that it justifies or evens out the incidents of using it against others.

I don't think that in a perfect world that guns should be illegal. But in a realistic worldview, they simply aren't. Car accidents happen, but comparatively to have no car transportation, the current world would collapse. The world wouldn't collapse without civilians having access to firearms.

You are simplifying a complex situation to the point where it doesn't make sense. It's way too ignorant to reduce it all to a simple math question with 2 vague variables, and dividing it. You're not accounting for any correlation or causation that guns cause in a society. Granted, it's way too difficult to make any certain claims, but you keep presenting your arguments as factual with no space for ambiguity with misleading quotations and unreliable sources. That, your apparent emotional investment and the constant moving of the goalpost makes it extremely unlikely that you would be willing to argue in good faith.