Murder is wrong because it violates an individual’s rights.
Rape is wrong because it violates an individual’s rights.
“Gun control” is wrong because it violates an individual’s rights.
There is really no difference in the wrongness of those wrongs.
These things aren’t wrong because they are illegal and aren’t right when they are “legal”. They aren’t wrong because people agree they are wrong. They don’t stop being wrong if a majority stops believing they are wrong, because individuals are still being violated.
If an act violates the rights of an individual, then you have no right to do it. If you do it anyway, you did wrong. You committed evil. That you believe your act is “necessary” changes nothing.
People disagree about what the rights are. Just saying “this is my right” doesn’t add anything. Where do these “rights” come from, and how do you know the rights you listed here are valid?
Because any other definition of rights falls apart from being internally inconsistent. They simply won’t work.
All rights are “negative” in nature, as in “no one has a right to do X to another”. If you claim a “right” which enslaves another person, it can’t be a right. You have no right to violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else, just as they have no right to do the same to you.
People can “disagree” all they want, just like some disagree about the Earth being generally globular in shape, but the disagreements are just as silly.