Excellent analysis. Thank you!
"if it saves just one life..." has always irritated me, because while high and noble sounding, it focuses all attention away from the equally, if not more important "if it costs just one life..."
In particular, look at waiting periods. Ostensibly, to allow for a "cooling off period", so someone upset would have time to calm down and think things over, before buying a gun.
But look at a real world unintended consequence of this reasoning. Many women have been injured or killed, often while under a "protection order" from a court, while waiting to legally obtain a gun for self defense.
There is no way to come up with a hard statistic on this, but it has, and does happen, a lot. How many lives have been lost, because the state prevented someone from getting a gun in time? If it was only one, it's still too many.
How are we to count the bodies found dead, with an empty gun? We can't. Not accurately. The anti's count on this. Someone(s) killed because they needed an 8th or 11th shot in a gun that had been legal to hold them before the new law, (and we all KNOW it is going to happen) seems like a very poor replacement for the empty promise of "if it saves just one life..."
On reflection, it seems that the claim of "if it saves just one life.." is actually valid. But the lives saved will most often be those of the criminal attackers!
Personally, I have no interest in that, or in that philosophy. We ought to be making things more dangerous for violent attackers, not less.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.