But none of those statistics are arguments against gun control or reducing the number of guns in society in order to reduce the number of mass shootings and gun-related deaths in the US.
Those demonstrate that as the number of guns in the US has increased, the number of people being killed by them has decreased.
I've never argued that its impossible to reduce the number of people killed by guns. I'm sure there's a way to do that. But, that shouldn't be anyone's goal. The goal, I would think, should be to reduce the number of deaths of innocent people, period. Nobody has presented any evidence that taking away guns from law abiding people will achieve that. Also, that claim doesn't pass the smell test.
Of course, even if you could make a convincing case that taking guns from non-violent people would reduce the total number of deaths in the US, you'd still have the problem of doing so being a violation of everyone's basic human rights. I'm not willing to violate everyone's rights, especially in service of an unsubstantiated claim about it making people less likely to be the victim of violent crime.
This assertion has already been demonstrated to be false on both counts:
1) The percentage of households with firearms has been decreasing for decades. It has not been increasing. Using the raw number of guns in the country is a bad faith argument.
2) Your own sources argue that there is not a negative correlation between number of guns and crime rates as you seem to be asserting.
Finally, what proposal are you arguing against right now, because it really feels like a strawman. Gun control does not mean "Take away all guns". Proposals such as Universal Background Checks and preventing individuals with violent misdemeanors and substance abuse convictions do not take guns away from law abiding citizens by definition.
It is quite difficult to actually hold a conversation when you seem to be arguing against bogeyman and ignoring anyone who tells you why you are wrong.