> So while yeah, there may be other issues with mental health, gun training, domestic violence etc, you can significantly reduce deaths and injuries by removing guns - which people often have because they think having a gun will reduce those.

The thing about statistics is that they have causes. More people having guns causes more criminals to be shot (or, better yet, deterred), but also more accidents. But those are two different things, one good and one bad, so why don't we work to reduce the bad and keep the good instead of losing both?

We know that much of the bad is caused by poor safety training and by teenagers, so why not add firearms safety training to the school curriculum? How many accidental deaths would be prevented by a semester of "always assume it's loaded and don't point the barrel at anything you wouldn't want to shoot"?

We know that gun safes and range practice reduce accidents, so why not institute some tax incentives? These things may cost less than requiring additional law enforcement and much less than accidental shootings.

And soon you have a net positive instead of a net negative. (Though your original claim did fail to account for the deterrent effect on crime. Which is hard to measure since it's area-wide rather than per-household given that criminals know local culture but not which individual households are armed, but just measuring the households with firearms against those without fails to account for it at all.)