On the other hand, what exactly is the "freedom" being proposed and how does that effect society?
In the case of the pro-gun viewpoint "Freedom" is the unfettered access to all sorts of deadly weapons by all sorts of people. To these people, incidents such as Gabriel Giffords only point out that "Freedom is not Free". It comes with a cost.
And the cost is to society in terms of money spent treating the victims of gun violence, prosecuting the perpetrators, and then incarcerating them--if they happened to have lived. There is also the cost to soceity from the effects of these shootings on families and communities.
The "gun rights" crowd like to cite the Second Amendment which clearly states that its purpose has something to do with "well-regulated militias":
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.When question comes to the truth of whether this deals with "gun rights" or the right to a Well-regulated militia, one needs to assess whether it makes sense that the intent was to see society plagued by the effects of gun violence?
This had something to do with how the nation was intended to be defended?
Doesn't the latter make far more sense?
So, the pro-gun crowd has to do everything to keep people from scrutinising their arguments since they blatantly fallacious and don't stand intellectual scrutiny. Scratch the surface and the issue behind the Second Amendment was a standing army v. the militia, not "gun rights".
Use your intellect, not your emotions. The pro-gun arguments are all propaganda that don't want you to stop and think.