Both case studies are first and foremost incredibly biased against gun ownership and thats evidently clear in the text.

Even so, the study you provided is at least something to support your argument, except that in both of them they reference and are “confined” to the state of California.

Being this is anecdotal to a state that has some of the most stringent guns laws, I’d say these studies are intended to keep it that way, which is perfectly fine for that state.

However, in my state the laws aren’t as stringent and people don’t frown upon gun ownership and rather embrace it as a way of life in some sense.

Also, as a key note, there are rarely any reports of “guns working” to protect people because, well, people that are protected because of gun ownership isn’t something thats reported in any statistic on any law enforcement databases, unlike homicides.

Because of this fallacy, its easy to pull statistics from something that’s readily available and easy to manipulate into a narrative to support these cases.

But, I will finalize my rebuttal to your claim here and say yes, its more than likely a bad situation to have a firearm available to you and if your decide to use it at the wrong moment, you’ll end up shot first. So, its not about the firearm at all really, it’s about knowing when to use it and when to walk away to live another day.

Firearms have a bad rap for a lot of reasons, but they are a “tool” of self defense and when NOT properly used, people end up dead.