[OopsCriticality]

I suppose it depends on your perspective. To some, passing laws with an overt goal of "making people safer" (but not actually doing so), with the covert goal of regulating a product out of existence, is a wanton act against our democratic system.

[HoHoHoNowIHaveA]

If your premise is that less guns does not make people safer...

...then you inversely arguing that more guns does not make people unsafer.

Which is not true. More firearms makes for an inherently more dangerous society. Less firearms does indeed equal greater safety.

[Lawtonfogle]

So does not allowing the majority to vote and handing voting rights to a few selfless individuals who will do what is best for society overall.

Even killing a person for their organs if it saves more people is a net gain in safety and health.

[HoHoHoNowIHaveA]

It's not a net gain for the populace since they will live in perpetual fear of being the next harvesting target.

False analogy; not even close to the same thing.

[Lawtonfogle]

So now we include fear. So what about the fear that if one right is stripped from us then our other rights are also at risk.

[HoHoHoNowIHaveA]

Rights are taken all of the time.

This is not a Libertarian issue which loves to take major policy issues and apply niche cases to decide them.

Your right to steal property has been removed; it does not automatically threaten your right to vote.

Debate the main issue on the main points otherwise you are simply bikeshedding.

You said organ harvesting would be a net benefit to society; my argument is that it would not since we are killing a member of society purposefully.

confiscating an assault rifle would not instill the same fear as the Government killing your neighbor for his liver.