In response to the everybody should be armed argument, people should simply ask the gun activist whether or not they support Iran getting a nuclear weapon. By the logic that the gun activist applies, everybody is safer when everybody is armed, and this would translate to support for Iranian weapons; in reality, these people almost always say that Iran isnt a rational actor and that giving them a nuke endangers everybody around them. When they say this, you should simply tell them that not every gun owner is rational and that unrestricted gun ownership is the micro-equivalent to letting every country have nukes.
Still waiting.
Uhh no these are different issues. If there was a guarantee of ZERO guns, meaning somehow guns just couldn't work anymore, I'm sure everyone would like this, including myself. But since criminals have access to black markets, they will still get guns REGARDLESS of whether it is illegal or not. Drugs are illegal but people are still using them no? Heres the thing. Criminals will have guns regardless, but the gun laws are telling us whether or not lawful citizens will be able to own them too. People want to be armed so they can protect themselves. Having to use your gun for self-defence is rare, probably won't happen in the average lifetime but it happens to some people. You would probably want protection in that case. Put it like seatbelts. You probably won't get caught in a car crash but if you do, you would be wishing you had a seatbelt. I never said that "everyone should be armed", I am pointing out the bullshit in your "facts".