Most Americans, myself included, don't like giving up personal rights for "security."

Disregarding that "most" is probably incorrect and the long history of pro-gun candidates stripping rights from people, who cares what you "don't like"? The south didn't like giving up slaves. Hungry people don't like rationing. We're under no obligation to politely tolerate immoral, harmful things because you don't like them.

Those are also some extremely dubious use quotation marks around security.

It's inarguable that for most people, gun laws that actually work are vastly safer than selling guns to anyone who can fill out a form. Every single person who has ever been killed by a "responsible gun owner" (or a firearm that a "responsible gun owner" failed to secure) would have had better odds under gun control.

But the pro-gun community doesn't care because "fuck you, I got mine". Their security comes at everyone else's expense -- sometimes even at the expense of their own family.

To draw a parallel that I figure you'll agree with - far-right rhetoric is on the rise and I think we should do something about it.

Way more irrelevant that you realize. You're not actually advocating "we should do something about extremism and mental health" like you think, you're advocating "we should do something about extremism and mental health while continuing to maximise the violence they're able to cause with easily accessible firearms.

Maybe when the start blowing up schools, stabbing kids, and running them over with huge F-150s, the DNC will start saying "Public access to fertilizer, pointy metal, and cars is the issue! No more fertilizer = no more school bombings! It's that simple!"

Oh you mean the things we're already able to do because there isn't a self-absorbed death cult preventing it?

When car and truck attacks started happening, areas with a high number of pedestrians had vehicle blocking installed. The attacks never killed remotely close to as many people as semi-automatic weapons did but waned anyway.

Bomb attacks just aren't happening, despite the pro-gun crowd constantly claiming they will the moment they stop selling guns to people with a history of abuse.

The reality is that building bombs requires far more time, effort and risk for usually underwhelming results. The Boston Marathon bombing killed three people. Sure, Timothy McVeigh still holds the scumbag high score, but where are the copycats? Probably in jail, since buying enough explosives to fill a truck gets you a visit from their feds.

Then of course the token "but knives!", which only works if you don't actually think about it. Terrorists aren't choosing knives, even in the rare cases where a gun isn't an option.

A moderately strong door can stop a knife attack. It's much safer for a coo or armed guard to engage someone with a knife. Stab wounds are more survivable than gunshot wounds. Stabbing multiple people takes far longer and is more physically demanding, especially as they take wounds by being in arms reach.

Can we acknowledge just how low a bar the gun laws set when "someone stabbing as many school children as they can before they're subdued or killed" would be a measurable improvement?

But I'll tell you what: If you give gun control the same 20 years we've politely given your dogshit solution, every time a school is attacked you can come to us and demand solutions.

And I promise we'll do better than blaming video games and gay people, taking millions of dollars of donations from knife manufacturers and staunchly opposing any revisions to the law for the rest of time.