will be any more able to systematically kill large numbers of US citizens if they enforce gun control laws?
Well, yes. You don't send troops into a country unarmed. You send them armed so they can give a good fight. An unarmed populace is far less likely to fight off government than an armed populace.
government would be able to devastate its populace, whether or not they are armed.
Even if this is the case, what is your point? "We're all gonna die if they do it anyway, so no point in trying to protect ourselves." That's the mentality of an Uncle Tom slave.
But as you said, it doesn't matter, the government would win regardless.
I don't remember saying that, but it does matter. Especially if all regulation is eliminated and we can arm ourselves indefinitely. As the Constitution meant for (volunteer militias, no Federal taxes, etc.)
the prevalence of guns is having a very large negative effect
More deaths by gun is not more deaths as the data has shown. Higher percentages of gun crimes is not a higher percentage of crime in general, as the data in MY links have shown. So your statement is, for the most part, a falsehood and it's annoying that people are still claiming this. Some countries have higher crime, some have lower, gun control has shown not to effect violent crime... ONLY violent crimes used by guns. They end up using something else, and as MY graphs have shown, in some cases violent crimes go up when guns are regulated/banned.
many more people are dead than otherwise.
but they're not. Britain is doing just fine with knives and bats.
I see no evidence in the graphs you provided
It's contrary evidence to your claims that less gun control = more deaths.
there is obviously an alternate explanation
then find it. stop claiming that gun legalization results in more violent crime. the data shows the contrary (hell, the evidence in the link also shows that giving people the right-to-carry guns in public actually have correlated with LESS violent crimes. lulz)
Having a government is elitist
Government is a construct. Having people with guns taking your shit and telling you not to make personal decisions without approval is elitist, tyrannical, coercive, and violent.
who has the ability to kill me, to legislate my life, and so on
Everyone has the ability to kill you and will kill you if they want to. Government automatically legislates your life and will kill you if it wants to.
Guns are used for violent crime, and to stop violent crime.
Guns are equalizers. Guns, REGARDLESS OF LEGALITY, are used for violent crimes. Guns, only when legal, can be used to stop violent crime.
As shown in my link, crime is heavily deterred by gun ownership.
They're insecure about the gun owners.
I know people who are insecure about heroin addicts and gay marriage. I guess liberty isn't for them.
I would rather trust a (somewhat) accountable body of individuals, rather than everyone
You'd rather have your body of individuals tell everyone else what to do... I know this already.
And I completely agree that these people should be punished, and there does need to be a culture change. That is a different issue to gun control, however.
Unless the cultural change is to stop giving a small group of people power over everyone else, you do not agree with me.
As for your link, I've described it's problem already (gun crimes versus crime in general.)
But anyway, you're not optimistic, you put faith in government but you're pessimistic about the people with NO power.