And I agree change is possible, but legislation can't, and shouldn't, dictate how we treat people.
and it's going to infringe on our rights.
Well, that's really what I expected and wanted you to say.
In a nutshell, Americans don't really want change and aren't willing to "lose" anything to effect change.
And, I'd like you to know, I say that without assigning blame, pointing fingers, calling you names, etc. Your opinion is what it is and is certainly not uncommon.
There is nothing I can say or show you that is likely to alter your opinion. At this point, you don't really believe that the risk of guns is worth the curtailing of your personal freedoms. Certainly a difficult opinion to espouse publicly at the moment, but a valid one nonetheless.
Frankly, the 2 arguments that I expected to hear, but really didn't are the 2 that are the most difficult for a gun control advocate to deal with.
1) The fear factor. It's hard to convince someone who has genuine fear to give up their protection. It's a convincing argument for someone who lives in the wrong part of town, not as convincing for someone who lives in a gated community. And it doesn't address the issue of domestic gun violence (domestic in the sense of knowing the shooter) I'm not sure why anyone needs an arsenal of semi-automatics and a thousand rounds in their home for protection, but a weapon....okay, I can see that.
2) The "well organized militia" factor. I get it, it's enshrined in the constitution and supposedly a part of being a patriotic American (you'd think that mandatory military service would be big among patriotic Americans, but it's not a popular idea). Even in this 50 page thread, it really doesn't seem to be an issue. Personally, I would have thought it would be a palatable way for legal, responsible gun owners to allow some control over the sale, ownership and maintenance of weapons (ie you need a militia membership card to purchase a non-hunting or target gun or something like that) without a constitutional wrangle.