That would be an opinion, not a fact. It is as easy to argue that the speeder is responsible for hitting the person who cuts them off, as it is to argue that the shooter is responsible for shooting the person that suddenly steps in front of their bullet.
Yet, you ignored my point: "clearly illustrated by the anecdotal evidence presented by Electicbees. Skill and attention plays a large part in it."
Why shouldn't they get to? I can't agree that you should be allowed to turn your home in the middle of a residential community into a high explosives factory. You may be willing to accept that risk, but you shouldn't be allowed to force that risk on the people who own homes next door to yours.
Your own argument was that the shooter's rights shouldn't supersede the playground kids'. By that same argument, what lets the kids' rights supersede the shooter's? The funny thing about statists is that the first argument they use when anarchists complain about taxes is "just move, then," but when property use comes into play, that argument is never brought out.
No, eliminating public property doesn't solve the problem.
Yes, it does. The owner can set whatever rules they want, including a speed limit on private roads. Or they can choose not to impose a speed limit, and you can choose to drive on that road or not. Public roads are everyone's property equally, and you don't have the right to dictate how someone else uses their property.