Can I get a real answer?

Since when is anyone "allowed" to make an argument that influences my personal and individual freedoms in a negative way, as in completely take one or more away, without providing facts and proof showing my individual and personal freedom is responsible for the deaths or injuries of others?

Specifically, I'm referring to the number of people known as "antis" in the pro-gun community who find it socially and academically acceptable and responsible to make their arguments without providing any data whatsoever to prove their claims. Not only that, we see a relentless movement by a group of people who simply refuse to read or flat out ignore the facts showing gun control does not stop/reduce/lower crime. In fact, the stats show that where gun control and restrictions on the citizens' right to bear arms exists, crime is actually higher and rising than communities, cities, states, etc. that allow that thing also known as the Second Amendment to be accessed by the citizens.

See before and after stats of crime rates in regards to when gun control went into effect in Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York City, and Chicago. No, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Am I a hypocrite for not providing the stats? Maybe, but that's subjective. Frankly, I'm just tired of doing all the work to show the numbers and having them fall on deaf ears as the antis continue to scream and yell and make a fuss about gun control after years of having their claims challenged.

Considering the Second Amendment discusses the right to bear arms, it would be RATIONAL to think the group challenging my right that already exists, is in place, and is currently in practice as I write this would be held responsible for providing relevant and convincing data as to why The Right to Bear Arms is unequivocally dangerous and a threat to the foundation of this society...

That'd be what everyone would think. That's what happens in the world of science where repeatable tests yielding repeatable results are required to prove and/or disprove theories and the like. That's what happens in the court of law, or at least what is supposed to happen...remember "innocent until proven guilty?" The responsibility of proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt to get a conviction lies squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution. Wouldn't the same logic apply when the antis challenge my right to bear arms? Don't they have to provide statistically data from real life showing their claims are true and not just a temper tantrum?

If I'm mistaken, confused, or missing something other than the effect interest groups, money, and lobbyists have on government officials, please, let me know.


Oh yeah, that video...if you like guns, watch it. If you don't like guns, watch it. See here.