> but we’re comparing a death rate of 14/100,000 to 10/100,000 which really isn’t that different

Its 40% more.

> As for other acts such as domestic disputes, fists are far more prevalent because the intent is rarely to kill, and all households have knives if the intent is to kill, so I’m not sure if firearms are a major factor in the actual rate of disputes.

It wouldn't be a factor in the rate of disputes, it would be a factor in a dispute that turned into deadly one as opposed to not.

> Firearms do not increase suicidal ideation nor intention, they merely provide a more fatal means to do so

They are also extremely convenient and instant.

> So I really don’t consider the argument that restricting a population from firearms is good just due to that

I don't think people are making that argument.

> As for #1, cars are still widely accessible,

Cars are only practical for killing more than a few people when there are large, condensed crowds with road access into them.

> and those who go on murder sprees would have far worse chances if more people carried weapons for self-defense.

"But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer."

"It was twice as common for bystanders to physically subdue the attackers, often by tackling or striking them."

- https://portside.org/node/28842/printable/print

> Do you have a meaningful way to protect yourself if you were attacked? You should, your safety is a God-given right that only you can properly defend in the heat of the moment.

That is not a strong argument for anyone who doesn't feel that they will be likely in a situation which requires them to kill someone for their own safety.