“Why do you care about gun control? Do you want criminals to have guns?”
That’s a false dichotomy and faulty reasoning. The removal of guns from criminals is not the same as gun control.
One of the problems is that self-protection is a natural right, not a right conferred by a governing body. So all people have the right to protect their lives and bodies by the best available means. If guns are removed as a means of self defense, many people will be at the ‘mercy’ of anyone who would do them harm. The old, the infirm, the disabled, the small, the weak; they would be subject to harm by anyone stronger or larger or younger.
How gun control is proposed is also a problem. The attempt is to register all guns and limit their movements and transfers. By doing so you limit the ability of non-criminals to possess means of protection. What you aren’t doing is limiting the criminal’s ability to possess means of harm. With or without guns, criminals possess the ability to do harm by their willingness to commit crimes.
The de facto result of gun control is the creation of a gun registry. You no longer simply have a registry of guns, but a registry of gun owners. This creates a plethora of issues in itself, but the primary one is of definition. What defines a disallowed gun owner? Gun control proponents say, ‘criminals’. But what crimes? Violent crimes? Is assault a violent crime? One can be convicted of assault for what would generally be deemed non-violent. Sexual assault can be a streaker exposing him/herself to an unwilling participant. Fraud is usually non-violent, but is often deemed violent when coupled with coercion or threats of consequence (i.e. “Sign this document or I’ll tell the cops your son sells drugs”).
Gun control proponents also want to limit those with mental issues from having guns. Again, to whom would this apply? A new mother with postpartum depression? Should we remove guns from all new mothers until they are cleared by a doctor? Bipolar disorder is diagnosed in about 5% of people. Are they unable to buy a firearm?
And how do you prevent events where a person who would be unable to purchase a firearm obtains a firearm by violence or theft? The man who walked into that school in Sandy Hook and killed those children first killed his mother and took her guns. Some might suggest that you remove guns from the residence, but now you remove them from more than the criminal; more precisely, the pre-criminal. Entire families are held helpless against those who might do violence on them.
Those who are against private gun ownership often insist that government gun ownership is the solution. But often, the police are unable to respond to crimes quickly enough to prevent the crimes. During the LA riots, the police were unable to respond, in some cases never responding. Korean shop owners prevented loss of property and life by private gun ownership. In Ferguson, Missouri, black gun owners protected white owned businesses from being burned by rioters. A cop posted a warning which advised people to “get [a gun] and get one soon.” What is one person to do against a mob without a gun?
Why am I against gun control? Because with gun control, people are denied a basic human and natural right of self-preservation. And anyone who says you are granted this right from the government is also proposing that this right can be removed by that government. Any government which denies its people the right of self-preservation is a tyrannical one. Gun control is the foundation of tyranny.