Unlike government, I support all human/civil rights (if I didn’t, I would’ve never voted for Ron Paul and like candidates), and most importantly the inherent human/civil right to self-defense. You cannot exercise any rights if you’re forced to be defenseless by government, and are consequently murdered or attacked so violently that you end up in a persistent vegetative state.
This right was affirmed (not created) in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and first written in the Babylonian Hammurabi Code, which is considered the world’s oldest surviving written collection of laws.
Since all available peer-reviewed and government statistics prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that infringing self-defense, also known as “gun control”, only achieves a criminals utopia (wherein victims are defenseless and criminals can safely strike with impunity), this is not a debate where good people may disagree. To believe that “gun control” saves lives means that only saving criminals’ lives matters, with zero regard to the infinite costs to innocent, forced to be defenseless, victims.
To claim a misunderstanding or ignorance of the right to self-defense and its proven intrinsic benefit to the innocent beggars belief. Especially since this would place the claimant into the “unable to perform personal hygiene tasks without daily re-instruction” intelligence quotient. Since clearly these claimants can function in society without said re-instruction, there can only be one explanation: it is an act, executed by sociopaths, who dance in the blood, and on the graves, of innocents, merely to push for further innocents to be made powerless to defend themselves against criminals.
Stay safe out there.
The Butter Zone 
Smart. Stefan Molyneux says the same…
“Gun Control: History, Philosophy and Ethics”