It doesn't automatically follow, you might need to ponder it for a split second. If you meant to suggest something other than getting rid of guns probably wouldn't reduce the chance of mass murder you were so unclear that no one should be faulted for misunderstanding you.
I mean, I don't see the words "doesn't automatically follow" as being somehow ambiguous.
It also goes back to a conversation from a while back where I said that gun owner that don't admit that they are a greater statistical danger of dying by a gun are hypocrites who are denying the evident reality of academic data, and that every gun owner is the safest and wisest gun owner of all time until they aren't. You're position was that you were in no way less safe because you owned a gun. I find that hypocritical.
The only hypocrisy I see is your saying that the academic data is unassailable while then accusing me of not being dispassionate or objective.