Let’s agree that this is not personal, I do not feel addressed by “anti-gun-nut” and I don’t intend to mark you personally. I may sometimes confuse what you cite with what you claim - forgive me for that.

Let’s try to focus on what we may tentatively agree upon:

1. Murder and assaults are to be condemmed and prosecuted first of all. Not weapons are killers, but their users.

2. A focus of a weapon may be reasonable if the potential harm of misuse is rather high (similar assessing risk of failure and potential damage in a risk analysis). It may seem appropriate to regulate use and access to weapons if there is significant risk and damage in potential misuses.

3. Certainly, there are inconsistencies - we do not live in perfect rational worlds and risk preferences vary strongly.

Is 3 the main reason for our disagreement? E.g., because you may easily get chemicals to build weapons of mass distraction, but guns are in comparison overly restricted? If so, then we should work on that, but I do not see a pro grun case. So, yes, buying poison or gases might also be regulated more strictly.

People have abducted planes, if you remember… There is no absolute security. But people react to risks and mass shootings are more frequent than all other neglected dangers that you have cited.

What then is you point? I indeed may totally have missed it, sorry.

PS: You gun-carrying survivor certainly has more options than a non-carrying person, but that is “linear thinking” and works ceteris paribus only. If all do it (carry guns) perpetrators will account for that so that misses out on feedback and unintended consequences…