Forums / Discussion / General

"People think differently from my perfect and rational standpoint; THEY MUST BE MENTALLY ILL!"

"you just want to take our guns away"
the worst and stupidest of them all, gun control doesn't mean the universal ban of guns, i have no idea who spread that stupidity,

The Republican party, that's who

Unfortunately, guns have been thoroughly ingrained into American culture so it's going to take a great deal to implement anything in regards to gun control.

The infamous "gun show loophole" is really just private sales of guns. Stopping anyone from selling private property to someone is not exactly something you can easily implement into law. Any public vendor will still do background checks.

The "200 mass shootings" this year statistic is mostly due to gang violence. A mass shooting by definition is "4 or more people who have been injured by guns at once". So gangs participating in a shootout, or a drive-by where 4 people got injured, is considered a mass shooting.

Gun violence is an issue that needs to be tackled, but there's a lot of misunderstanding from anti-gun people that leads to pro-gun people being extremely obstinate. When people stop using buzzwords like "assault weapon" or parroting misleading statistics like the mass shootings one, then maybe both sides will start to work together.

That's not to say that the pro-gun side is completely innocent, but that should kind of go without saying. cough NRA cough

Gun control is a difficult topic because both sides have a point while also being full of shit about a lot of stuff and pretty much argue against their own strawman more than the other side. There is no desire to compromise or understand the other side, only implement everything you want against the will of the other side because "there is obviously something wrong with them"

No, literally OP.

"i honestly belive there is something wrong with people who oppose gun control"
third line in OP's post, and heavily implied by the title.

guns don't kill people

gamers kill people

Many people that oppose gun control because the people that are adamantly for gun control tend to have little to no understanding of guns. This means that the kind of gun control policies they go for would have little to no impact on preventing mass shootings, while simoteneously harming law abiding people who have guns. In fact, 27 of America's 3,242 counties are responsible for almost 80% of firearm homicides.
Without them, we'd be at the EU average, but in possession of 300 million legally-owned guns. Many of those counties are in Mississippi, Louisiana, Maryland.

This article is an extremely good explanation as to why mass shootings are a bad way to talk about gun control. To sum up, the statistics around overall homicide rates (which are going down since the 80s) and suicide (which is 2/3rds of all gun related deaths) are radically different than the statistics around mass shootings.

The other major point that a lot of anti gun control people have is that when it comes to the mass shootings, which is when we start talking about gun control anyway, the greatest commonality among the shooters is…extensive use of prescription psychotropic drugs. Now this isn't to say anyone who is on those drugs is going to become a mass shooter. However the commonality suggests that there is a serious mental health problem among, specifically, young white males.

I've pointed out that during the 90s and 2000s there was a huge level of over prescription of psychotropic drugs administered to white boys. At a certain point 15% of young white men were on some sort of psychotropic drug, be it adhd, depression etc related. Why white boys? Many of them from middle class families who can afford this.

Mass shootings, in my opinion, should be less about gun regulation (which often wouldn't have prevented anything) and more about the mental health and over prescription of drugs to our young boys. This is a problem no one in the US likes to truly face because of the potential implications and ramifications, but it is a problem that needs to be certainly addressed. And the doctors and pharmaceutical companies that have pushed these drugs as widely as they did need to be held somewhat accountable.

We're not insane for being anti gun control. We just know that it is often brought up as a cathartic emotional display by people who have little understanding of the overall problem. And we aren't going to let massive regulation occur by people who are ignorant of the facts and base it all on a, justifiably, emotional charge.

>"you just want to take our guns away"
>the worst and stupidest of them all, gun control doesn't mean the universal ban of guns, i have no idea who spread that stupidity, if you'er a law-abiding citizen with no record of mental-health issues or criminal activity, you will keep your gun.

What if gun control is implemented and that turns out not to be true? What if a law-abiding gun collector gets falsely reported as planning a mass shooting, gets his home searched on a court order and guns confiscated permanently? You don't need to convict someone of a crime to take what they own (e.g. a large sum of money from a suspected drug dealer), it's not too far-fetched that it could happen.

You don't offer any kind of insurance that it won't happen.

How do you expect to prevent anyone from acquiring a gun in USA without regulating private ownership? There are just so insanely many guns, unregistered guns, you're not going to stop theft or private (undocumented) sales. Heck, if the California shooter didn't buy a gun in Nevada he could've gotten it from a dealer in Mexico, it's much closer and the border is open as fuck.

One way or the other, what you need to change to prevent mass shootings is mentality and you're not going to do that by legal action.

I find a lot of you ant-gun control folks to be full of shit. "Right to bear arms" extends to stuff like knives as well, but what do we find? Switch-blades, butterfly knives, gravity knives, even Bowie knives in some places, are all federally and state side illegal, and you can get arrested for owning one or travelling with one across state lines. Where's the outrage? Where's the "people still stab each other! Didn't help at all!" Assholes to shout and screech about how it's only the mentally ill who stab people? Never bringing up that the mentally ill wouldn't have had access to the weapons they used to carry out their shootings had guns not been easily purchasable from places like Walmart. Good on walmart btw for removing violent game demos but not their guns and ammos. Really getting to the heart of the cause, right? After all, anything but the guns are the cause for high gun violence.

Reason they're silent is the same reason they don't want to talk about these recent shootings, where the shooter wasn't overly medicated but instead just a racist piece of shit sparked off by a baboon of a presidents caveman rhetoric. Just like a lot of knives outlawed were seen as weapons only immigrants used, be it mexicans and the switchblade, Russians and the gravity knives, or Filipinos and the butterfly knives. When it targets minorities, the 2nd amendment stops mattering and suddenly these people are all about regulating weapons. Can't carry a 5 inch knife but you can carry a fully loaded AR-15 no questions asked, because obviously the knife is far more likely to kill 30 people in a couple seconds.

NRA is racist and has been racist this whole time. They adamantly opposed black people owning guns and lobbied hard for them to be watched by the FBI when they started Citing the need to defend their neighborhoods in the 70's. And we see it here and now with how not just the NRA but a lot of these gun advocates work, talking about banning muslims from owning guns and citing them evil Mexicans as the main reason gun control wouldn't work. They only care about white people, and if you aren't white, they could give less of a fuck about if you were allowed or not allowed to own a weapon.

fix thr people, then talk about gun control

> Switch-blades, butterfly knives, gravity knives, even Bowie knives in some places, are all federally and state side illegal, and you can get arrested for owning one or travelling with one across state lines.

You can owe that to the US vs Miller case which clarified that the protected arms that the second amendment covers are specifically ones that are utilized in military or warfare. Specifically to the case, "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

Keep in mind, the part of the second amendment here is that preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and frankly small knives do not fall under that purview. BUT, that can change if the military starts implementing switchblades as a weapon of war.

And by the way, I personally think that switchblades, and other concealed weapons (such as knife in a staff) ought to be legal for self protection and preservation.

>Never bringing up that the mentally ill wouldn't have had access to the weapons they used to carry out their shootings had guns not been easily purchasable from places like Walmart.

Walmart is subject to conduct the same background checks as any other retailer for when purchasing a gun. However, because the US also has HIPAA laws, which protect health information from public access, neither Walmart, or any other retailer has access to your mental health background. In fact, that is one of the things that a lot of the "we need better background checks" side doesn't ever think about. And I really doubt that all too many Americans are open to the idea of loosening the HIPAA laws so that gun-retailers can access your private health information.

Here is what can prohibit you from owning a gun:

>Were convicted of a crime that carried a sentence of more than one year, or a misdemeanor that carried a sentence of over two years

>Are a fugitive (i.e. there's a felony or misdemeanor warrant for your arrest)

>Are an addict

>Are diagnosed mentally ill, which can include being involuntarily committed, found not guilty by reason of insanity, or found unfit to stand trial (which is public information)

>Reside in the US illegally

>Are dishonorably discharged from the military

>Had a restraining ordered issued against you (i.e. found guilty of harassing, stalking, or threatening a partner or the child of your partner)

>Were convicted of domestic violence (i.e. convicted of using or threatening to use a deadly weapon against a spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, etc.)

>Have renounced your US citizenship

>After all, anything but the guns are the cause for high gun violence.

What do you mean by high gun violence? As I have pointed out, homicide rates have been drastically going down since the 80s. Most deaths related to gun violence is suicidal. And if you want to get non-PC here we can also conclude that a most of the gun-related violence has to do with drug-related offenses committed largely by young black men. There are a myriad of reasons for why this is; poverty, environment, etc. Mass-shootings in recent years however fall under drastically different statistics, and are committed disproportionately by young white males – each one with an extensive history of psychotropic drug use. And yes, before the 90s, the kind of mass murders we've seen were relatively far FAR more rare than they have been today – PRIOR to mass-medication of young white males by their baby-boomer parents who couldn't deal with an over-active child.

Facts don't lie. The secret service assessment of the situation highlighted that of the 22 mass-shootings in public spaces, 67% of the attackers experienced mental health symptoms prior to their attacks.
The most common symptoms observed were related to depression and psychotic symptoms, such as paranoia,hallucinations, or delusions. Suicidal thoughts were also observed. Nearly half of the attackers had been diagnosed with, or treated for, a mental illness prior to their attacks.

>They adamantly opposed black people owning guns and lobbied hard for them to be watched by the FBI when they started Citing the need to defend their neighborhoods in the 70's.

Maybe because black-youths were 7 times more likely to commit homicide than a white person?
Which by the way, I agree is bullshit, as I think restricting gun-ownership by race is absurd, and horrible.

> And we see it here and now with how not just the NRA but a lot of these gun advocates work, talking about banning muslims from owning guns and citing them evil Mexicans as the main reason gun control wouldn't work

Like whom? Can you cite me someone with relevancy or influence that specifically said that?

But over-all, this is precisely what I meant in my previous statement. Gun-control advocates want to create legislation out of ignorance and emotional outrage. It's justified to be angry and emotionally outraged. I, and many other gun-owners, want there to be less shootings. We want something to be done. What we don't want is for someone making legislation who thinks the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle", and not "ArmaLite".

Just ban apex legends from ESPN. That'll solve all these problems right Chewbunny? After all that's what both the NRA and Republicans are pushing so obviously, that must be it. These well informed gun advocates must know what they know, os obviously Vidya Gaems Bad and are the source of both all mentally ill people and all the white nationalist commiting these shootings. I'll just go burn steam since i obviously know less about this then the Big D himself.

Btw I am a gun owner and i know and have fought against gun regulations before. But enough is enough and i am sick abd tired of the scape goating, excuse babbling, refuses-to-take-acountability pro-gun side. The fact they would rather revive the video game scare of the 90's rather then do literally anything productive, including refusing to investigate these shooters when it comes out they had a posting history on r/the Donald as well as storm front and pol.

>the pharmaceutical companies and the drugs they are pushing are the real problem
the existence of one problem doesn't overrtight the other.

except prescription psychotropic are widespread all over the western world.
these pharmaceutical companies are international, and have their tendrils almost in every developed country on earth.
but we don't have mass shootings happening every other week in other parts of the world, they only happen in the US
and overwhelming majority of these mass shootings happened with legally purchased guns.

which means, that if it wasn't possible to aquire these guns legally, these mass shootings would not have happened.
because being able to stealthily contact the black market, and have the high enough money to pay for it, is a task most mentallly ill people on psychotropic guns CAN'T handle

>gun control will prevent law abiding citizens from aquiring guns.
this is simply laughable, the whole point of gun control is to ensure that only law abiding citizens will be able to aquire guns.
how will it be inneffective, it 74% of all mass shootings were committed with legally owned guns?
why is itno one has problems with being demanded with tests and a license to drive a car. but when the same thing is suggested for a far deadlier tool it's suddenly infrigement of rights???

there is concrete proof that gun control helps prevent homicides,
the US is the only country that has this kind of mass homicides.
yet despite all these, all these anti- gun control people will shift the blame to anything else, and sometimes even say that the solution is just having more guns so we can have the "good guy with a gun".
so until im provided with a good point to how gun control is bad, you are insane to me.

>so until im provided with a good point to how gun control is bad, you are insane to me.

POOCHY BTFO BY OP LMAO

>Just ban apex legends from ESPN. That'll solve all these problems right Chewbunny?

No. And I didn't suggest that. And I am not Republican nor do I agree with or really give a shit about the NRA. The NRA if anything is just an easy, tangible target for the anti-Gun crowd because they think the NRA is the single biggest barrier to any kind of reform – which to me highlights even more profound ignorance about the US and our gun-culture. But that's just my view of it.

> These well informed gun advocates must know what they know, os obviously Vidya Gaems Bad and are the source of both all mentally ill people and all the white nationalist commiting these shootings.

They are well informed enough in regards to their domain which is being targeted here. But like you, they also want something to understand why these mass-shootings happen and why they are far more frequent post 2000, than prior. For many of them it could be culture rot, which video games are the biggest target. It's also an age-old excuse that has existed for a long time and tends to ring very strongly with an older crowd. We know it's bullshit.

>I'll just go burn steam since i obviously know less about this then the Big D himself.

You should probably burn that steam off because you're not really addressing anything I am saying or arguing and are instead projecting. I get that this is an emotional issue, I really do. And like you I would like it to be tackled head on. But I know that the statistics around mass-shootings are radically different than the ones around other gun crimes, and we have a societal tendency to merge the two into a single issue. Which is asinine.

>But enough is enough and i am sick abd tired of the scape goating, excuse babbling, refuses-to-take-acountability pro-gun side.

And I am tired of the perpetual emotional outrage that the pro-gun regulation people have everytime there is a mass shooting, desperately begging for something to be done, not realizing that everything they are proposing would have done little to nothing to prevent the mass-shooting in the first place. I'm exhausted by the ignorance, the stupidity, and the inability for anyone who wants to take on this issue seriously to actually sit down and try to look at all the factors.

>except prescription psychotropic are widespread all over the western world.
these pharmaceutical companies are international, and have their tendrils almost in every developed country on earth.
but we don't have mass shootings happening every other week in other parts of the world, they only happen in the US
and overwhelming majority of these mass shootings happened with legally purchased guns.

Yes, because, unlike the rest of the Western World, (except Switzerland and 'Stralia) we actually have a large armed populace. We also don't have universal healthcare that covers mental health issues.

Furthermore, compared to Europe, US kids are 3 times as more likely to be on psychotropic drugs. Stimulants were used at rates 10–25 times higher in American children 0–4 years old compared to the two Western European countries where this was compared to: Germany and Netherlands. There are more people in the US who take SSRIs than there is in any of these Western Nations.

The only honest comparison would be comparing US to Switzerland, and guess what, not only does Switzerland have an extremely low case of anti-depressent use, the average person that is on AD medication is an elderly woman. Not a young man.

>which means, that if it wasn't possible to aquire these guns legally, these mass shootings would not have happened.
because being able to stealthily contact the black market, and have the high enough money to pay for it, is a task most mentallly ill people on psychotropic guns CAN'T handle

Sure. I agree. But what kind of legislation would you then create that would allow background checks to look into whether or not someone has a history of psychotropic drug-use? Are you going to suggest that HIPAA laws should be reformed to allow for it? I'd agree with that, but I bet a shit ton of Americans on both sides of t his issue would not like their personal medical information being available like that.

My argument is that this isn't about "doing something". Because "something" could prove to do nothing to stop these shootings, and instead make it harder on the 99.999% of the rest of gun-owners who aren't going to go on a massive spree.

I'd rather we do "something" that would actually work. And the argument that "well we should take away the second amendment" is absolutely the worst way to go – given it would take 2/3rds of the US states to ratify such a legislation, followed by enforcement which would create violence that you can't even imagine, not to mention the case-study in Australia kind of proved nothing – since they now have just as many guns as they did before then, and they already had homicide rates dropping like we do.

So let's take all the facets into consideration. Let's ask, why was mass-shootings, so much more rare prior to 2000s, what is the common factor besides gun-use among these kids? The vast majority are white, young, and have a long-term history of psychotropic drug use. They either go off their meds and go on a shooting spree, or have an emotional reaction (as the stats point out). So shouldn't we consider that a factor?

>why is itno one has problems with being demanded with tests and a license to drive a car. but when the same thing is suggested for a far deadlier tool it's suddenly infrigement of rights???

Because a car is a privilege, not a right, and guns are a right, not a privilege. Furthermore, how is having someone take a test and get a license of some sort going to prevent these kids from acquiring guns? What if they are on their medications and are perfectly lucid while taking these tests, and acquiring these licenses? This is the kind of solution that I am talking about. It may sound like your doing something, but ends up doing virtually nothing to stop or prevent the real problem.

>there is concrete proof that gun control helps prevent homicides,

And yet homicide is an entirely different topic than mass-shootings, as statistics involving that are radically different. Did you read the article that I linked by any chance?

>so until im provided with a good point to how gun control is bad, you are insane to me.

I provided 2 long posts regarding this. So I'll sum it up again. You can make gun-control legislation that would do nothing to stop mass-shootings from happening, yet would make it far more difficult, or expensive for the majority of people to access arms.

If I sound insane to you after making these posts then maybe, just maybe, you're the crazy one here.

>the inability for anyone who wants to take on this issue seriously to actually sit down and try to look at all the factors.

That's fucking rich. Maybe we'd be able to look at some of the factors, if one political party backed by a bunch of NRA lobbying money didn't keep shutting down every single information gathering organization?

The same party who introduced the Dickey Amendment, which blocked any ability for the CDC to study anything related to gun violence, including any possible connection between mental health, income, social standing, or any other factors thrown around hypothetically, from ever being conducted.

Yeah, that's all your information is Chewbunny. It's all hypothetical, because the one group who can actually carry out a thorough study of the issue, isn't allowed to do so, because of the exact people who you claim gun control advocates misunderstand as being a problem.

The NRA may not have a lot of influence, but it has enough to cause a massive stalling on progress in solving this problem. They have repeatedly not only killed any attempt to regulate guns, they have also lobbied to kill any attempt to even study the problem. You know why? Because they know that they have a responsibility in this matter, and they would rather mass shootings continue unchecked then solve it.

After all, who benefits from people being scared? The guys selling all the self-defense weapons. Who gets cash after a shooting? The guys selling ammo to scared citizens to defend themselves with. Who has the most to gain from arming teachers and feeding a police state? The guy who sells those teachers guns, and sells the police ammunition.

>If I sound insane to you after making these posts then maybe, just maybe, you're the crazy one here.

Nah, you're not crazy. Just full of shit and hot air, blowing it out your ass because you don't want the chance that you aren't right, and the left maybe, just maybe, might be onto something with targeting the group lobbying hardest to prevent any research into mass shootings or gun violence.

>That's fucking rich. Maybe we'd be able to look at some of the factors, if one political party backed by a bunch of NRA lobbying money

Yeah, all that $711,654 spent in 2018.
It's not NRA money that is the issue. It's the fact that NRA represents a large body of voters. Voters who through voting determine politicians. It's not the money that politicians get from lobbying. It's the votes. Keep this in mind.

The Dickey Amendment is a fucking bullshit amendment – I totally agree.

> It's all hypothetical,

It's not. It's well recorded, and I have made links to the relevent information in this very thread. More than 2/3rds of mass-shooters have experienced mental health symptoms and issues prior to the attack. There is also significant research about the fact that using ssris and other psychotropic drugs can actually worsen the problem. It's rare, but it still happens. And as I pointed out to JollyJew, we, as a nation, started to radically over prescribe such medication to young men in the 90s.

>Just full of shit and hot air, blowing it out your ass because you don't want the chance that you aren't right, and the left maybe, just maybe, might be onto something

The left is right to criticize the NRA. the NRA is not infallible, and I have pointed out that I don't agree with them. And I also point out that I am in agreement with you that the Dickey Amendment is bullshit.

But I see the confusion. So to clarify, when I said this:
"The NRA if anything is just an easy, tangible target for the anti-Gun crowd because they think the NRA is the single biggest barrier to any kind of reform"

I'll extrapolate.
The NRA is an organization that represents not just the pro-gun lobby in terms of manufacturers but also the consumers, the every-day pro-gun American that needs a lobbying group in congress to represent their interest.
Their power? The vote.
Imagine going up to a candidate and saying "if you vote against this gun-related issue, we will mobilize our supporters to vote against you." In many, many, many parts of this country that politician would have to cave if they want to get the votes to give them the mandate to govern. That's worth far-far-far more than money donations. And that's how the NRA, and many other pro-gun lobbying groups operate.

So yes. The NRA is a tangible target for the anti-gun crowd to sink their emotional outrage. But where they miss out is the fact that the people that support the NRA through donations aren't the ones who's minds are being changed. If it isn't the NRA, it would be something else, just as powerful and just as influential. Because the NRA is representative of a group of people. That's why I say that it's their favorite target. Because the reality is, they don't have any realistic arguments that would change the opinions of the people that support the pro-gun lobby in the first place.

So I'll say this. Hopefully this sinks home.
We have access to guns in this country. That's a second amendment right. To change this right you'd have to go through huge political hurdles, including, convincing 2/3rds of the states to adopt the changes. Then, after they adopt them, you'd have to enforce the bloody rule. And that enforcement is going to be very ugly. Very very ugly. And with a ton of violence.
Okay, you say, so we can't get rid of the second amendment. We still need gun reform! Okay. Great. How do you propose we get guns out of hands of people that commit mass-shootings? Vast majority of them, as JollyJew and I pointed out, got their guns legally. Do you propose we reform HIPAA laws where to get a gun we need to have access to the medication you are on, and determine, based on what psychotropic drugs you are on, that you cannot purchase one?

Here is a map of the density of homicide rates across the country. You'd notice, you would, that the highest density tends to be in areas that are more often urban. In fact the worst 1% of counties have 19% of the population and 37% of the murders. The people that are most pro-gun don't even live in areas which are the most affected by gun violence. It's the urban centers, which are largely pockets of the anti-gun crowd that does. Mayhaps that's also why there is such a disparity in why the issue is so radically conflicting.

Let me confess something first, I swore to never ever ever ever get involved in any serious topic on the internet, but sometimes I can't help but to dip my big toe into this pool (it's fun). And I did read everything you said, Jolly. So, what you're going to hear is someone who is entirely pro-gun who has listened to both sides but is not in any way emotionally involved.

I live in the US. I shot my first gun in November 2007 at an indoor shooting range. It was a Glock 9mm and I shot 50 rounds through it. I was shaking and freaking out even holding it. On the way home from the shooting range I was still shaking and freaking out like crazy just at the fact there are people out there that actually carry those things around. I couldn't fathom how in the name of God these things were legal when countless other things that were nowhere near as dangerous were illegal. This mindset of mine continued for years. I just played it off as it-is-what-it-is.

I did learn more about guns and guns rights here and there, like anyone else, that did change my view and got rid of my fear but it wasn't until I started watching pro-gun, or gun-related youtube channels that were run by people who have been involved in guns their entire lives that completely eliminated any taboos relating to guns and did make me look at the entire issue opened minded and with no emotional influence, and from that it became almost obvious the people should have the right to own a gun. But hey, if anything, I don't even see it as that important to talk about. I see guns like I would see anything else. I wish we lived in a world where guns wouldn't have to be a right in the first place, I think most pro-gun people would think the same, but it has to be.

Everything you said against it was about mass shootings. These shooting are not done by someone evil. Evil is a word used to describe an antagonist in a children's book. These shootings were done by the wettest, most cowardly type of person that could exist. Someone who couldn't handle real-life problems and lets this hatred fester up inside of them which they lacked the basic mental capacity to let anything go. So they put their own mistery on to others knowing they were going to get the exact reaction they desired. Are we going to allow these kinds of people to influence our laws and rights and our actions? A few weeks ago one of these sick individuals burned down the Kyoto Animation Studio, one of the survivors there announced he's going right back to work as the 'ultimate counter attack' as if what that sick fuck had no influence on him, which I 100% agree with.
(Don't worry, I'm not bringing up the Kyoto Animation Studio arson attack to allude to the fact the attacker didn't use a gun. I think it's irrelevant and I don't think its right to use that to make a point to push an agenda.)

So, the million-dollar question, why does the right to own a gun even exist? Because it gives power to you, the people. You don't need to be a certain type of person, you don't have to be born into a certain type of family or a rich family, you don't need to be a part of a certain organization, you don't need to have an approval from the government or any third party, you don't need to be working for the government. You don't have to do anything to have this right and nobody other than you can do anything take this right away. Any restrictions are more means to loophole it and to limit the power to the people.

It's going to be really hard not to continue this without getting into talking about the 2nd amendment so I won't. There is something I would love to say about it, in my next point, but it would just come off as bickering. I know full well there's nothing that I could ever say about the 2nd that would change anyone's opinion, pro or against. And I am not going to mention other things you said for the same reason, I do have something to say on it but it would be entirely in vain.

There is something you did say I want to respond to:

""we need guns to overthrow the government when it will become corrupt"
- that's just laughable, do these people really think their little AR-15's and casual shooting at bottles will be able to stand against the US army – that has tanks, artillery, bombers, heavy MG's and soldiers with some of the best military training in the world? what are they thinking???"

That's a crazy interesting thing to say and I'm actually surprised you did say that considering you're anti-gun. Yeah, the US military does own all those things. The people would be outgunned if push came to shove, but it would be way worse if we had no gun rights.

I could not stress this out enough that the best thing to do is to watch videos from people who have been involved in guns their whole lives discuss these issues. Yeah, most of them are just gun shooting videos like hickok45, but my most favorite BY FAR is Iraqveteran8888. Their 'gun gripes' series covers a big range of topics. Their older videos with Barry, before he passed in '14, were the best so I'd start with those. Great binge watch.

And dude, so many times I thought the same thing about so many other debates when you say "all these arguments can easily by dismantled and invalidated with simple logic" I know! I tried saying things like that before and I'm sure everyone has also, but trust me that's not how any of this works. I learned this over and over when I had old opinions about other people, groups and anything else.

I'm also typing this while it's pretty late so I have to post what I have so far, I'd hate to leave anything out but there's no way I'd want to make another post on things like this.

tl;dr: Guns are awesome and fun af my dude. Nobody should fear or be influenced at all by those cowardly retards who commit mass shooting. All the arguments against gun rights you did and didn't mention were factored in during those old debates and they still made the 2nd. So, Murica for life!

Guns are awesome.

What kind of idiot wants to violate my 2nd amendment? Look at California, they have strictest gun laws yet Mass shootings happened

I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's something wrong with anyone who opposes gun control, but I agree that there are people who oppose gun control with whom something is wrong.
Anyway, to answer your question, I think most of the opposition to gun control (as in "opposed to any form gun control whatsoever," rather than just "opposed to an absolute ban on all firearms") comes from gun manufacturers. You see, any law which prevents someone from buying a gun means one less gun sale than if that law wasn't in place, which in turn means less money for gun manufacturers. As such, it's in the best interest of gun manufacturers that there be as few laws limiting gun sales as possible, so they do everything in their power to convince people that they would be better off with fewer gun control laws.