So on the gun control argument you have a few points that are pretty disingenuous.

Europe has been disarmed already and it’s defenseless against these invading hordes of immigrants that are very violent in most cases.

Let's start with "most cases". I mean that's just obviously untrue. There have been millions of immigrants to Europe in the past decade, the vast majority of whom have not committed any violent crimes.

Ignoring the choice to use the obvious dog whistle of the word "hordes", let's inspect the underlying logic here. You imply that the average citizen being allowed to own guns makes us safer from the threat of violent attack. But can you provide a single case where the so-called "good guy with a gun" actually stopped such an attack?

So anyone who supports gun control literally supports massive amount of violence to be carried out against everyone.

This conclusion is based on a gross mischaracterization of what gun control advocates want. I have literally never heard anyone advocate for the forced removal of all privately owned firearms. The priorities I usually hear about from gun control advocates are removing the gun show loophole (which allows you to bypass any and all background checks) and allowing for gun-free zones around school.

And before you go thinking I'm some anti-gun nut, I'm not. I own a Mossberg 500. And while I do think the gun show loophole should be closed, I honestly don't care that much about this issue. What are a few dozen dead compared to the prospect of making the earth as a whole unlivable for future generations?

I was offended not by your position on the issue but by your use of logic and mischaracterization of the opposition.