You are being unreasonable and in a long winded and convuluted fashion I will explain why.
So 99.97% is on the surface a good number. It’s similar to our accuracy at work, where the right mistake at the wrong time could kill our crew and ruin billions of dollars of hardware.
I will point out our ‘99.97%’ number is for making a mistake. Of those 0.03% mistakes made almost all had no effect and of those that did have an effect none so far have harmed crew or equipment. So in that respect our numbers our 0.0% catastrophic.
For assessing risk we use something similar to this:
With our risk controls, risks that can kill or maim are kept to 5X1 or 5X2 (consequence X likelihood).
If the controls can’t keep the risks that low then everyone had to buy in on the risk acceptance before accepting the design or performing the activity or it doesn’t happen.
In the gun control case the 99.97% number is applied across the 393 million guns and 50 million households containing guns. When applied to those numbers statistically there will be 10,000s of deaths and maimings per year.
Applying that to a standard risk matrix gives us a risk of 5X5. Controls are thoroughly inadequate to control the hazard. Yet you are saying those deaths while tragic are simply the cost of doing business. You have to live with restrictions on your gun rights so others will have to live with impacts of gun rights on their lives - namely death.
If that was one of our projects we wouldn’t do it. But if we had to, it would require everyone involved to accept the risk and for efforts to be made to reduce the risk over time
Now you could argue that comparing gun use to professional operational or engineering hazards isn’t a good analogy and if that were the case the next best comparison is probably to driving which on whole also has a 5X5 risk.
Driving kills or maims a similar number each year. Yet there are two significant ways we treat driving differently than guns.
(I’m going to ignore that guns are a right as interpreted under the 2A while driving is a legal privilege and that motor vehicles are a day to day requirement for almost the entire country while gun ownership is not.)
First every driver must have a license and insurance which means they implicitly buy off on the hazards of driving.
Second industry and the government keep working towards reducing the catastrophic hazards of motor vehicles:
When compared to gun ownership less of the country has accepted the risk than do for driving. More importantly, instead of industry and government working to reduce the risks of the hazards the republicans, the NRA, and gun owners such as yourself work to stop any further controls that would reduce those risks.
So the long and short of it is when you claim that current gun laws make things safe enough while ignoring 30,000+ gun deaths a year then you don’t come across as a sober and responsible gun owner. You come across as Lord Farquuad from Shrek.