Thanks for providing these. It's good to see opinions backed up with evidence. I do however have a few questions.
Higher ownership of guns in a state is linked to more firearm robberies, more firearm assaults and more homicide in general.
The title of the article is: "States With More Guns Have More Homicides" and you yourself said it leads to more homicides in general, yet the article only appears to mention firearm related homicides. The reason I point this out it because if say in 2 different neighborhoods 20 people are murdered in each, but in neighborhood A, 20 people are killed with a gun and in neighborhood B, 10 people are killed with a gun and 10 with a knife.
If I say that neighborhood B has a lower gun-related homicide rate it gives a false impression.
Largest study of it's kind. American Journal of Public Health. More guns = more gun deaths.
More guns = more gun deaths presents the same problem conflating people murdered by one means as being more important than being murdered by another.
Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide - International Peer Reviewed, Journal of Injury Prevention.
"Higher risks of homicide" is not what the paper is presenting. Higher risk of gun-related homicide is what they are presenting, the paper's abstract says it's clear objective is "Objective: To determine the association between mortality from violent or firearm related injury and previous handgun purchase."
Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of suicide - International Peer Reviewed, Journal of Epidemiology
This study (from what I can see in my limited reading time) appears to check out.
Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of accidental death - Elsevier - Accident, Analysis, Prevention - Published in Science Direct
From the abstract: "This study used national data and a matched case-control design to estimate the relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot associated with having firearms in the home."
If the paper is measuring the number of gun-shot injuries I'm not really sure what relevance it has. If there is no gun in the house, of course there isn't going to be a gun shot injury, just as there wouldn't be a pool drowning in a home that doesn't have a pool.
I suppose the point you're arguing here is that guns should be removed entirely to prevent accidents. I'm not sure it's a strong enough argument though to warrant depriving somewhat of a right to own a certain type of property because that property might be involved in an accident if the owner is irresponsible.
For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home. - US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health
From the paper: "Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense." It seems to be legit, I just see what point you are trying to make about it. Are you suggesting it justifies removing this property from people? If so, could you elaborate on your argument?