A few points from this video:
1: Horrible presentation: this is fear-mongering at its finest.
2: Not a single argument presented from the anti-gun perspective.
3: Admissions that length of sentences are not high enough (nothing to do with guns at all).
4: Admissions that police are hilariously under-equipped to respond and deal with crime (nothing to do with guns).
If your police force cannot do its job, and your justice system is a joke, then surely you can see how that would reduce the risks for would-be criminals and make it more likely for them to commit a crime? Why is 'no guns' the only explanation for an increased crime rate (if indeed those figures are valid)?
You can't just say that gun control = tyrannical regime (note: I have never once actually advocated an outright gun ban). Stop being ridiculous.
What level of weaponry do you believe individuals should be allowed to own? Would you be happy for Joe Schmoe to own that same level of weaponry?
Gun advocates are fond of saying 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.
Yes, people kill people. Using guns. A gun is such a devastating weapon to the human body - the only reason to point it at somebody is if you want them to die. If it's trivially easy to get hold of a gun, then more people are likely to use them against other humans. This isn't complicated.
The pro-gun lobby seems to think that anybody who advocates gun-control is some kind of idiot: that we don't understand how not owning a deadly weapon reduces the ability to defend myself. Of course we understand that - but we believe that the risks of easy access to guns far outweigh the benefits. I am fully aware that criminals will still get hold of guns - but they have access to them anyway if guns are legal. I'd rather have the odd armed criminal than all of them armed.