My point is that those arguments are irrelevant.
Closed source software is written by people that are BOTH not paid to do it and paid to do it. Open source software is written by people that are BOTH not paid to do it and paid to do it. You make incorrect assumptions and irrelevant points in your arguments to illustrate that somebody else's arguments are irrelevant.
Closed source can only be audited by people whom are granted the permission to view the code by the copyright holder (small pool of auditors). Open source software can be audited by anyone (larger pool of potential auditors). When it concerns public safety, copyright holders have an interest in protecting access to flaws which would tarnish their reputation so they control auditor access. However, the public has an interest in auditing software which renders products/service unsafe to use, so the power of the community is employed to audit and improve open source software in ways which make it safer. Clearly, when it concerns matters of public safety, open source software is more likely to be audited.