system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Increasing gun control is unequivocally the right thing to do.

I always try to challenge my own views, but I cannot for the life of me understand why we shouldn't try to limit guns in America. 
Safety seems so important to conservatives, who constantly talk about preventing terrorism on U.S. soil, many even going so far as wanting to ban muslims from entering the country. Despite the effort spent on terrorism, and its financial and civil liberty costs, over a decade there has been 24 deaths from jihadist attacks on U.S. soil compared to over 300,000 during the same time frame (I know this is cherry picking years and terror is a larger threat now, but these are just the years for which I could find accurate numbers, and the trend is the same over any period of time). 300,000 deaths in ten years is absolutely horrific to me. 300,000 people have had their lives cut short and have been taken from their friends and family; add up all of that suffering and you should be mortified. And that is just over ten years. 

To me, that is a tragedy that cannot be dismissed for the sake of preserving a right that has been exalted to a "sacred" status for no discernible reason. More than 30,000 people are being killed to preserve something that is merely a symbol of personal freedom. In addition, pro gun americans seem not to understand that their rights are not being threatened. Hardly anyone relevant to the national discussion is advocating the government knocking on your door and confiscating all of your guns. Most simply want people measures like banning those on the terrorist watch list from owning guns, expanding our background checks, or closing loopholes for private sellers.

The arguments opposing gun control seem specious, or don't hold any water at all. 

Argument 1: people have the right to defend themselves. Reality: the risk of losing your life immediately goes up as soon as you own a gun. We are protecting people's right to feel protected, but actually endanger themselves, which doesn't seem worth it.

Argument 2: "To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens." Reality: Quoting Hitler is a classic argument, but if you think that we are going to fall victim to an authoritarian government who plans to exterminate its citizens, you probably are a paranoid conspiracy theorist who doesn't understand how this country works. Hint: it's not the same as 1930's Germany. The real danger is already happening, and its coming in the form of 30,000+ deaths a year.

Argument 3: "Gun control is ineffective."-people who live in the only developed nation with astronomical numbers of gun deaths. Reality: It is fair to oppose somewhat misguided measures such as trying to prevent mass shootings (which don't actually kill that many people) by banning large capacity magazines. However, gun advocates don't just oppose these measures but ALL measures, and refuse to offer any alternative legislation that would save lives and preserve their rights.

Argument 4: Slippery slope, we can't start relinquishing our gun rights or we will lose more. Reality: This is a classic fallacy used against any measure that tries to help people, such as gay marriage. Gay marriage has been legal for a while but its still illegal for a man to marry a donkey. I just don't see how it makes sense to oppose reasonable legislation because it will lead to unreasonable legislation.

Argument 5: None of these arguments matter, regardless of what you think, the 2nd amendment guarantees my right to own guns anyway. Reality: I also am a fan of the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." People have the right not to get murdered in the street, and that seems more sacred than your right to form a well regulated militia to defend yourself when Obama imposes sharia and marshal law before leaving office. Which by the way, you still have the right to do because no one wants to take your guns away. 


In summary, I think that gun advocates are letting many people die to preserve their oddly sacred right to own a gun, which really isn't even being threatened. I think I might come across as snarky or arrogant in the argument i just wrote, but I know there are a lot of people a hell of a lot smarter than me who are pro gun, and I don't for a second think with certainty that I know better than they do. I simply want to open my eyes to the other side of an issue that I see as indefensible.

edit: many people think I am saying liberals are entirely correct on guns; I do not think that. Some liberals overemphasize mass shootings, demonize gun owners, have zero respect for 2nd amendment, or focus on passing legislation without considering its effectiveness. Liberals are not always right when it comes to guns.
gpt
> terror watch list

So let me get this straight: you think the government should be able to take away a *constitutional right*, just by placing them on a list without any due process and with no avenue for appeal? Do you seriously not see the problem here?