When looking at homicides committed with firearms, you really need to discuss where the majority take place, rather than overall numbers. You'll find that the overwhelming majority are committed in areas where handguns are already illegal to carry, concealed or not, areas where there are stricter gun laws than anywhere else in the nation. DC, Chicago, and most other large cities where drugs and gang violence are rampant and uncontrollable, and those who commit the crimes are already breaking laws by having possession of a firearm before ever pulling the trigger.
Comparing overall numbers serves no purpose. You'll likely find that deaths caused by firearms is far less common than deaths caused by automobiles in all but a few areas, and the statistics from those few areas cause the overall numbers to be skewed wildly out of proportion to the reality for most areas. Only in these heavily populated, crime-ridden areas will you see the ratio of firearm deaths to automotive deaths flip-flopped. A perfect example is DC.
Even considering all the above, however, the actual overall murder rate by firearm in the US is only slightly over half that of the suicide rate by firearm.
The right to keep and bear arms in the US is there for a reason. It's there, not only so we are better able to protect ourselves from violent criminals, but also so that we are able to protect ourselves from possibility of a government that may become tyrannical. The best way to ensure a government devolves into tyranny is to remove the ability of it's citizens to protect themselves against it. Whether this seems laughable to some or not, it's fact, and was a valuable piece of foresight the founders of our country were blessed with when drafting the constitution. The indisputable fact that in areas where more people legally own firearms the crime rate is dramatically lower than in areas where few or none are able to legally own firearms is the best proof possible that more gun laws will do nothing except ensure that fewer law abiding citizens own firearms. I think that if a home invader had only a 5% chance of breaking into a home where the owners were unarmed rather than a 95% chance, the home invader might consider a different line of work. The nut who shot up the theater in Colorado..didn't he say he specifically chose that theater because it didn't allow weapons in the place?
All that aside, to address the original poster....I really don't understand the point. You have a right to carry, he has a right to ask you not to do so on his property. Either remove your weapon before you enter his place, or don't enter his place. It's very simple. If you don't want to give your patronage to his place of business because of his political viewpoints possibly being too far left for your taste, that's also your right. I'm ultra-conservative, personally, but I only have a problem with left-leaners when they have a problem with my own viewpoints, and in fact have more than a few friends who are as grass-eating, tree-hugging, liberal, left-leaning as you can possibly get without being horizontal, but we respect each other's opinions and views, simply disagreeing on many things.
Also, this quote: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"....it will be true as long as the human race survives.
Oh, and one last thing: He may not be as left-leaning as you might believe. I do not allow ANYONE on my property with a firearm. The only person I want on my place armed is myself. I even require law enforcement officers to stow their weapons in their vehicle before exiting, on the extremely rare occasion one pulls down my driveway. They didn't like it, but it's my property, so it's my way or the highway.