So because I disagree with someone that means I'm not questioning my own beliefs and I lack insight. Right.
Is because you disagree with someone without giving a proper elaboration of the disagreement, sure you can say "I disagree" and that's valid, but you can't say someone is wrong and then attribute your opinion as a right one, because that's not how opinion works.
You say "A group is worse than group B" but you don't elaborate, your preconceptions are different from others so when you claim something that is affected by biases you don't acknowledge that such biases exists, because you are unaware of the preconception, see the problem?
There are individual cases, for example "Trump is worse than Jeb Bush", this is true but the underlying concept is that both are bad, so there are no middle grounds of further discussion if you operate under this base logic, the problem is not determining which one is worse, but get to the point that both are bad. Why? because the conception of Jeb Bush being bad is not contemplated under the banner of Trump being worse. This happens because you are trying to convince people Trump is bad, but you are failing to see that Jeb Bush is bad also, hence the problem, hence the remark.
What flaw? Gun rights are constitutionally guaranteed and that constitutional guarantee was recently interpreted and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Americans have a right to keep and bear arms and thus far have been willing to accept the consequences of that right because they feel that the benefits of gun ownership and the concept of freedom it's inevitably associated with, outweigh the costs. Foreign born peoples have no constitutional rights and no right to automatic entry into the United States and Congress has the power to change who is allowed into the country, how many, when etc.
Yet, I fail to see how in a civilized world attack weapon play a part on society other than retaliation.
My biggest gripe with the US constitution (in my opinion it is flawed on a fundamental point) is that it actively permits all population to be armed, the US constitution was formed under the ideas of freedom for each individual and the ability of said individual to protect it. This in turn is well received in times of civil turmoil as it means that any member of the states has the right to defend itself and the constitution against potential invaders (such as Great Britain defending its colony, or southern states, or the war with Mexico).
The problem is that is based on a paranoic idea of constant threat (you know, like the 9/11 one), in which all US population must have at all times a way of deterrence in case their constitutional rights are threatened. This is why guns exists, and why their use was largely promoted (like in the wild west). The problem with this is that in itself you create an industry which produces, distributes and sells guns, and since US population is pretty big, and every American has the right to have a weapon it means that is a huge market.
Having a market largely based on something that has the same level as a convenience will mean that a portion of the economy will largely depend on said convenience (gun), and when production is larger than local demand export is required, hence why the US is the prime seller of weapons around the globe.
So you have after certain time with no internal conflict which generates overpopulation, you have a large portion of the population reaching the poverty line, and you have guns (a combination that can't be good if you factor in gangs), overpopulation also means that the number of mentally unstable will increase, which means that potential assailants will increase. Places like the EU and the UK do not have this necessity because it is assumed that the military will take the role of defending such liberties as they are the armed forces established by constitution, in the US case both of the overlapping over the presumption that "One day we need to defend ourself from our own military", which is more anarchy than democracy.
There is a very thin line between anarchy and freedom, weapons that are designed to protect one will end up encouraging the other. You can't take away guns because a lot of people made their livelihood based on that, and people actually see the gun as an icon or contemplation item which can't be taken away from them (this is analogue to the concept of the AK-47 being a freedom fighter gun, ironically).
If you have the whole world operating under this idea, you will end up in something like the middle east, you have general population which is armed to the teeth, religion nutjobs taking control of significant parts of the population and basically lawless areas that governments or international organization can't control because of particulars having the fighting power to counter or diminish such institutions.
Example of this in the US, it will be a lot easier for the police to apprehend people rather than kill them if said people didn't had the means to retaliate against them, police is there to reinforce the law but the constitution is there to give the felon the capacity of counter the police force with lethal force, meaning that police is forced to retaliate with an equal lethal force. This idea is not acceptable in any modern society yet the US encourages its existence, and is based under this banner.
You can be responsible person with guns in this world, you will have a rightful way of having it, but it doesn't apply to the rest, not to the people who with Trump and their ideologies which will see refugees as potential invaders and the gun as a deterrent.
IMO you are presenting a false dichotomy as an unquestionable truth and are unwilling to question your belief in this false dichotomy.
Here is where it falls down, there is no such thing as an unquestionable truth since biases exists, I question my own beliefs because there should be a point equilibrium between Side A and Side B on a discussion, because regardless of opinions on a discussion there is a common ground between the two sides that demonstrate a general idea about the discussion.
