Thus expanding the number of households with guns and expanding the pool of innocent victims?

... HALF of what they were 20 years ago. But keep pounding the bullshit meme that liberal RKBA creates more deaths. We know it's bullshit, and you probably do to.

And if the likelihood of dying by gun is one half of what it was 20 years ago, why are the same minority of people buying more guns?

That sounds like protecting against a statistically non-existent threat.

and has been discredited. See Author Kellermann. There is zero evidence to support the claim. It if were true, Wyoming's and Iceland's murder rates would be astronomical.

What, in your view, is the function of the military, the police, and the state national guards?

the military is the strong arm of foreign policy, and the police is to enforce the law and investigate crimes. They also maintain order. Their job is not to protect you personally. They do not show up in the nick of time to protect you, and they have no legal obligation to do so even if it were possible.
Also, most rapid mass murderers are stopped by citizens who are present, not police.
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/new-rapid-mass-murder-research-from-ron-borsch

have been stopped by the mythical "good person with a gun"? Interesting because I have read nothing about that.

How many people have you personally protected from harm, as opposed to the police that you dismiss?

And please do not tell me about "Joe the farmer who lives 300 miles from town and the police would take 6 hours to get to his house" because that type of example is statistically nearly non-existent.

since it said the good guy there is likely unarmed.
and I didn't dismiss the police, it is a simple fact that the police show up in the middle or end of the event. They will tell you that themsleves. The writer is in the business of training police in tactics. His non ideological observations based on objective research has infinitely more weight than Wayne LaPeirre's, Piers Morgan's, or your ideological and uninformed opinions.

To augment U.S. military and to be "first responders" to civil insurrection or invaders.

None of these are charged with personal self-defense from an attacker (individual or en masse) in our day-to-day lives, nor can they, except in rare instances.

It's just sad that it has come to the LGBTQ having to arm themselves to feel safe.

as it is the ability. Unfortunately the law deterred them when anti gay bigotry was at its worst.

...cute pink guns from the manufacturers to entice more fearful folk to become NRAterrorists and thus fail their first field-test of faith.*

Meanwhile, legal gun manufacturers are the source for essentially all guns in illegal hands.

But those are small numbers, hardly worth funding NRA propaganda to keep a few gunners tingly and legislators turned from looking into (hell! outlawing investigations into) the US public health risks and international terrorist truths and wanton waste of wars aided and abetted without infringement by gun manufacture for profit in the private industry.

Want to claim your founding fathers were supermen and knew the future so well they still incorporated cannon rights into the cannon of the constitution?
Bring back the Springfield Armory and government control of gun manufacture.

*Google Einstein

Pink Pistols because the handguns they use are pink.

The company's that manufacture guns are the source of all guns, those in the hands of criminals and those in the hands of law abiding citizens. But those manufacturers aren't the reason criminals are committing crimes, or terrorists terror. That is individual responsibility.

The armory was a major source for making military weapons, but one of many. Remington? Winchester? Colt? Marlin? Smith & Weston? And many others should ring a bell. Incidentally, Remington is 200 years old, and is the second oldest U.S. company which has continuously made the same line of products: firearms. It also made typewriters, computers, etc. along the way.

The oldest continuing company? Dupont. It makes munitions. Still.

...got a question for you. What do you think of indigenous rights and tribal sovereignty?

Any other groups you feel you know better than, or is it just this one?