For starters, I choose to be anonymous because I don't feel like having my inbox explode with people who know very little about firearms and the legislation around them. It's personal preference, since Tumblr tends to be full of people who are quick to spout off the first thing they read without fact checking anything.
Secondly, no, you did not offend me by using the term that you did. Why? Because contrary to popular belief, not all firearms owners are ass backwards islamaphobic hillbillies that blindly support the NRA and other conservative groups.
The reason that your comment irks me is that it is a lousy argument point, and the information you choose to back your stance up with is lacking at best, and misleading at worst.
I will agree with you, the world isn't perfect. There are a great many problems that still need fixing in this country regarding women's rights, but the comparison that Chris, and by extension yourself, makes is very poorly researched and frankly does not reflect the truth.
I picked the screencaps that I did because they highlight a number (but certainly not all) of things that this overgeneralizing blanket statement assumes about firearms ownership legislation, and by extension, firearms owners.
The other thing that is bothersome with your response is your choice of "sources". This is the usual problem encountered when it comes to dealing with anybody on Tumblr when it comes to firearms ownership/legislation. The sources that you have opted to rely on are at the very worst, Mother Jones, a publication with a shitty reputation for bending the truth and telling only what fits their narrative. Also worthy of note, they published are article on "Illegal AK build parties" in California where the writer of the article committed numerous federal offenses/felonies because of his improper manufacture and disposal of the firearm he "illegally" built. Your other source seems to be a strictly liberal site that has more than a few Buzz Feed quality click bait articles that do little more than misinform the public. Finally the PBS link you chose.. notice the category it falls under.. "OPINION".
I touched on this earlier, but I want to re-iterate. The NRA is a shitty organization, and has become less of a platform for protecting the 2nd Amendment, and more of a politically fueled conservative advocacy group. I dislike the NRA and what they stand for today, because they've created an image for the firearms community that paints us all as idiots who only care about "MUH RIGHTS".
The other organization that you mentioned is the ATF. The BATFE is a joke. They are the strong arm of the federal government that advocates policy and bends the laws of this country how they see fit. Lately, the ATF has practically deemed itself above the law and has given itself the power (or rather, has been given the power that shouldn't be there to be given in the first place) to reclassify and reinterpret anything it wants to circumvent the checks and balances system of the federal government. If you want to see corruption, this is it.
Next, you label an inanimate object as only meant for killing. Guns are tools, same as any other object in this world. The thing that does the killing is the person behind the gun. With any other instrument that gives mankind the power to take the life of another human, we don't blame the tool, we blame the person. Guns should be no different. If you really believe that guns should be vilified for being able to be used to take a life, I suggest you take a hard look at virtually any other object you or anyone around you owns. You are right in some regards however, guns should not be trusted in the hands of every human being. People who suffer from mental illness, or have committed federal offences should not have access to firearms.. and newsflash.. they don't. Not legally anyways. That last bit will always be a problem. The prohibition effect only hurts those it is not intended to, and creates more problems than it "solves".
Finally, you do yourself a massive disservice by not actually reading. The link that I posted for you, is not one story, it is a large repository of information regarding debate on the topic of firearms. In it you can find fact checking on virtually any point you can possibly dream up about firearms. All the usual arguments those who are against firearms ownership make are addressed with sourced information that is presented to any who will take the time to educate themselves.
To respond to your theories though about my thoughts on that article? The decision that was made was the correct one. The case was lost because the claims of the family were insubstantial. The company they sued had no part in what happened, thus they had no bounds to sue. I feel for the family, but you cannot simply demand a company that was not complicit in the atrocity to fork out cash just because of emotions. That isn't how the legal system works. Instead of trying to exploit a company, perhaps they should have tried to actually do something to help the problem, such as try to boost awareness of mental health problems.
It is important in my eyes to inform people, and try to relay the most accurate information possible so that people can stop throwing out emotionally charged opinions that have little to no basis in fact to take away not only my rights, but those of everyone in this country. I strongly urge you to reach out and try to learn both sides to the argument before you spread misinformation to people. There are a great many young and impressionable people on this website that take the first thing they see at face value and don't take the time to validate the information, and when it comes to serious topics such as this, it is important to have as much information that is unbiased as you can. I cannot recommend enough that you try to speak to people like cerebralzero to try and get a better understanding of the situation.