Scientists agree: guns make society less safe

[Deus Naturae]

That's completely ridiculous.  Let's just look at it logically. 

If someone has a gun, what is more likely?

They use it to commit a crime + they accidentally injure themselves or someone else + they commit suicide

vs.

They use it to stop a crime

It's not even close.  Right?  Privately owned guns almost never save someone's life.  They kill thousands of people every year.  The homicide rate in the US was totally out of control 30 years ago and we had too many guns.  It's out of control now too, despite the overall drop in violent crime.

Unfortunately, the biggest victims of gun violence are people that nobody cares about, black men.  Even the "black lives matter" crowd doesn't care, because they only care when a black man is killed in a way that feeds into their racial politics.  Of course suburban white kids don't have a problem with guns.  In the suburbs, guns are a fun dangerous toy.  In a few inner city neighborhoods in America, guns are a plague. 

You're just making statements and assumptions and expecting them to not only be accepted at face value but considered more important than the actual data provided by RFayette.

The suggestion that guns are never used to prevent crime is blatantly false:

[Deus Naturae]

As for the suicide argument, even if you ignore the moral aspects (should people who want to kill themselves be obstructed by the government?), that strikes me as a confusion of the causal relationship. It seems far more likely that people decide to kill themselves, and then acquire a firearm than that people decide to kill themselves because they possess a firearm.

In any case, it makes little sense to restrict the freedom of countless non-suicidal individuals to "protect" the suicidal minority from themselves, especially considering the abundance of legitimate and beneficial firearms usage (as indicated by the chart above).

[Deus Naturae]

Taking data from two different sources with completely different methods of obtaining their data is inherently unreliable, especially when one has a bias towards undercounting and the other towards overcounting and moreover they don't compare incidents of equivalent severity.  In short, the comparison you make relies upon junk statistics of the sort only a university social sciences professor could love.

I'm curious as to why you think that the Bureau of Justice Statistics is biased towards undercounting (I'm not saying that it isn't, just wondering why you think it is).

Even if the data has some inaccuracies (as does most of this sort), do you really believe that they're extreme enough to negate the considerable gap between the two bars on the chart, or to provide credence to Bedstuy's assertion that almost no firearms are used to prevent crime?