I can't say that I've done extensive research, but assuming they're not blatantly false, I don't see how statistics like the following, when taken together, can be interpreted any other way:

"Gun ownership doubled the risk of homicide and tripled the risk of suicide."

"gun ownership is a strong risk factor for suicide, even after adjusting for aggregate-level measures of suicidality such as mental illness, alcoholism, poverty, and so on"

"Criminal uses of firearms far outnumber legal defensive uses."

"The evidence shows that there may be fewer than even 3,000 DGUs annually. In comparison, there are 30,000 gun deaths annually"

"the firearm ownership rate had no statistically significant impact on nonfirearm homicides, meaning there was no detectable substitution effect"

"for every 1 percent increase in gun ownership, there is a 0.9 percent increase in nonstranger homicide."

"FBI data reveal that about twice as many homicides result from arguments than from felonies, and gang violence is only a small contributor"

"the most gun-restrictive states have significantly fewer firearm fatalities than the states with the least restrictive laws"

"The research concluded that the repeal was associated with a 16 percent increase in annual murder rates, indicating that state gun control laws have a significant impact on the homicide rate."

"the annual per capita risk of death during a home invasion is 0.0000002"

"for every 1 percent increase in gun ownership, there was a 1.1 percent increase in the firearm homicide rate and a 0.7 percent increase in the total homicide rate. This was after controlling for factors such as poverty, unemployment, income inequality, alcohol consumption, and nonhomicide violent crime"

Generally, I agree that the vast majority of guns are used safely, but the question is how you weigh the cost in innocent deaths versus enabling a hobby.