I've always found it amusing that even though the "Gun control argument" boils down to "Should Liberals be allowed to restrict the fundamental human rights of themselves and others?", it's always the Liberals who lose their temper and throw insults and personal attacks around first.
At the end of the day, either you understand why gun rights are an important to protect, or you can't. Or you won't. Either way, do you really have any business insulting people who know more about this topic than you?
Making piracy more illegal won't stop all piracy.
Making drug use more illegal won't stop all drug use.
Making rape more illegal won't stop all rape.
Making poaching more illegal won't stop all poaching.
And trying to make legal gun ownership illegal makes life worse for everyone who suffers as a result of bad liberal lawmaking.
If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
That isn't really hard to understand. It isn't hard to admit that gun rights, like all human rights, are a good thing. I'm keeping profanity out of my post here so that no hypersensitive anti-rights easily-butthurt lunatic can pretend to be offended, and call for my silencing as is the typical liberal response to a debate they cannot win. But seriously, for every Liberal argument made against gun rights, there are plenty of videos debunking the lies used to prop up those faulty liberal arguments.
When you ban guns, you empower criminals and remove the common man's ability to defend himself. You only need to look at the high gun crime rates of Liberal-run urban cities with incredibly strict "gun control" laws to remind yourself of the fact that banning a weapon won't stop criminals from getting them on the black market. When a gun is in the black market, it cannot be traced or tracked. You cannot do anything about it. Whatever fantasies some might have about a world that magically becomes peaceful without guns won't ever happen. Was the world a peaceful place before guns were invented?
Murderers are willing to kill with guns, bombs, knives, trucks, and all sorts of other things. London didn't magically become a safer place when it banned guns. There was a period in time when London was hailed as "Proof that gun bans can work", and the people hailing that city quietly stopped once the rates of stabbings and "Truck of Peace" attacks started climbing.
Every compromise people have ever made with the Anti-Gun Rights crowd was a compromise with an unreasonable position, because saying "Black people don't deserve gun rights" is unreasonable. Saying "All people don't deserve gun rights" is also unreasonable. A compromise made with that position is a compromise with a constantly-moving goal post. The Anti-Gun Rights crowd will never be satisfied with the number of wounds they have inflicted to the second amendment. Setting arbitrary limits on how many bullets this gun can hold, how good this gun can be, how scary this gun is allowed to look, and so on won't protect you from a rapist. Your regulations won't save you from a murderer whose black-market gun doesn't have to follow any of your regulations or laws.
Calling the cops when things go bad is a good idea, but they don't exactly have a good track record of showing up in time to save anyone. With a gun in your hand, you can do something to save lives in the moment. Even if you don't have what it takes to carry a gun or use it to save others, you should still allow others to carry guns and save lives. Even if that results in them showing you up and looking better than you.
Conservatives are willing to carry guns and risk their lives to save others in the event of a mass shooting. Many Libertarians are, too. I'm not a Conservative, I'm a Libertarian. Legalize weed and guns.
Remember that time some church in Texas got attacked, and one man with a Sig Sauer saved everyone in that church? Remember how few bullets it took him to save the lives of everyone in that church? Good.
Now tell me, do you remember that gay nightclub in Orlando called Pulse? It got shot up by Omar Mateen, one bad guy with a gun. He killed fourty nine(49) people and wounded fifty three(53). Bet the people who died that night wished they carried a gun in their final moments. It might be a grim observation to make, but if we're ever going to solve societal problems like this, we need to look closely at why these things happen. We need to look at how one murderer was able to kill so many without any bullets flying his way, instead of hysterically blaming the weapon he used. I understand that leftist politicians profit from whipping up panicky people into a fearful frenzy for votes and donations. That profiteering response to this problem isn't saving lives, it's ending them. Omar Mateen was just one man, and he had many accomplices. The next Omar Mateen who easily slaughters helpless and unarmed civilians in a gun-free zone will have many accomplices, too.
With a good gun at their side, anyone can defend themselves from a rapist. Anyone can defend themselves from a murderer. Anyone can defend themselves from the next Omar Mateen.
If women don't have gun rights, how are they supposed to protect themselves from rapists?
If men don't have gun rights, how are they supposed to protect themselves from rapists?
Gun control is a failed solution, and I genuinely don't understand why anyone would continue to support it after how many times it has been proven to fail. It makes the world a worse place for everyone, besides criminals and rich politicians with armed bodyguards and gated mansions. Gun control makes the world an easier place for criminals. I could dare anyone who wants to take my guns to try and take them himself and see what happens, but we all know people like that are too cowardly to try and steal guns in person. They'd rather vote for politicians that boast about wanting to ban guns and order cops to take your guns. Debate is supposed to allow people to calmly and reasonably discuss societal issues while trying to come to a consensus, figure out the truth, and figure out the best way to solve societal problems. I wish debate worked on mass murderers and their accomplices.
To be honest, I've never heard a valid argument for gun bans. It's always either fear-based("Guns are scary! I shouldn't have to live in fear! The government should make me feel safe!"), feelings-based("I feel like I don't need a gun so you shouldn't be allowed one!"), shame-based("only THOSE DUMB AMERICANS believe gun rights are good! People with guns go on shooting sprees sometimes, I don't want to admit that my laws don't stop criminals with black-market guns and I blame you for crime even though my policies give mass shooters an easier time!"), or a delusional and unreasonable lie("Hurr durr the NRA is a terrorist organizashun that petitions the government to make more mass shootings happen! Trump killed a million people with an AR-15 last week! Also a good man with a gun is actually a BAD thing for an active situation because when the cops get there they won't be able to tell the mass murderer from the other people with guns!").
I was banned from a Fire Emblem forum a while back for explaining why gun rights are a good thing in a thread about gun control. Which is ridiculous. When you cut out a man's tongue, you aren't proving him a liar. You only prove that you fear what he has to say.
