More totally unsupported assumptions on your part. For instance, the damaged cause to the average human skull by a full-force swing of an aluminum bat is far worse than being shot by a .22 revolver. The survival rate for being shot is actually higher than in cases of blunt force trauma to the head.As far as the use of a gun in a crime vs. other weapons (which could include a fist), the point to make is that the outcome is more likely to be more severe for the victim if a gun is fired. It only takes a fraction of a second to pull a trigger. To beat or stab someone to inflict the same trauma of a gun shot wound would take considerably longer. In short, it's easier to kill someone with a gun than with any other weapon available to a criminal.
And while, according to you, it is "easier" to pull a trigger, violent crime statistics do not support your conclusions. FBI — Violent Crime
For instance, from the above available data, less than half of armed robberies are committed using firearms. (and ZERO were committed using the dreaded "assault" rifle.)
There were 1.5 times the number of aggravated assaults using various blunt weapons than using firearms. Similarly, aggravated assaults using hands or feet out number assaults using firearms. (and ZERO using the dreaded "assault rifle".)
In carjackings, firearms were used 45% of reported instances - less than half - which is why I immediately could dispute your allegation that having the firearm is what led to the carjacking your put forth as "evidence". (and ZERO using the dreaded "assault rifle".)
Only 8% of forcing rapes involve firearms. 68% of forcible rapes involve use of an edged weapon.
One thing I will say: it is easier to DEFEND against crime using a firearm. Just ask any LEO you know.