Without addressing anything you wrote, here's three other sources that yields the same results, including one from the ATF. Regardless of your opinions regarding the author there is plenty of data that backs up this assertion.
If you're trying to convince someone that is pro 2a of anything, the ATF is hardly a source of authority. They're pretty high up there in the list of reviled 3 letter agencies.
If you are OK with no addressing content; For your reference… NIH, ATF, and Washington Post are all anti-gun organizations.
For your ATF link, it’s all University criminology depts sourcing data, typically universities are anti-gun; and the sociology depts especially so.
It is very difficult to get unbiased results on guns. And ultra easy to see authority and confirmation biases. If you are mindful of that fact, the landscape and topic takes on a new dimension.
Why is the link that direction? Could it be that universities, etc are anti-gun because the data shows they are harmful?
Overall I find it odd that this standard is applied this way. No one accuses Universities of being anti cancer when they publish a study on how cancer harms the body. Or for example dismissing any study on the effectiveness of a vaccine because the group doing the study are pro vaccines.
Yes thanks to the power of imagination guns actually shoot candies and rainbows, thanks for setting me straight. The number of stolen guns shouldn’t be controversial lol