2nd Amendment

You: "The second amendment may seem like a good idea at first. If there was a tyrant or a corrupt government we can just gun them down." My response: Exactly. What would be so bad about that? A tyrannical government doesn't care about you or your family. To trust any government fully is very dangerous. You: "But imagine that there is not a single gun in the USA for a moment." My response: There are more guns than people in America. I can appreciate your imaginative thinking, but this is a Utopian world. In fact, it's not a Utopia, because millions of Americans enjoy hunting and shooting sports. (These are law-abiding citizens, by the way.) My point on this is that the idea of "not a single gun in the USA" is not going to happen; it's just not. There will always be guns in America. This is where we now have to make a decision about what sounds more reasonable: 1. Would you rather have guns be legal in the US where good guys and bad guys will have them, regardless? (Goods guys with guns who can stop bad guys with guns) OR 2. Would you rather have guns outlawed and only criminals can get them? (Criminals don't care about the law, and they will get guns even if they are banned... Murder is illegal but criminals do it anyway.) You: "Again, there are no guns in this world, and so they'd use other weapons, such as fire, swords, etc. And if the rebels are the majority of the population, then the government would be outnumbered." My response: Again, you are referring to an imaginary world where there are no guns. This world is imaginary for a reason; it's impossible. More importantly, the last sentence frankly sounds like Star Wars. The only difference is that in Star Wars, the good guys almost always win, and Star Wars doesn't have Nazis. Just 6 million Nazis killed 20 million people. Majority doesn't equal victory. Also, in government tyranny, the corrupt government confiscates all the citizens' guns; citizens are left unarmed but the tyrannical government is not. Why would a tyrannical government disarm themselves? They wouldn't. Therefore, the government would win because a bunch of bad guys with guns can, will, and have demolished populations of unarmed innocents with EASE. You: "My point is that there are other weapons you can use in order to overthrow a corrupt government. " My response: Like what? Name one that would be effective against a tyrannical government. Swords, fire, rocks, bow and arrows, etc. wouldn't have defeated the Nazis, the Soviets or any other evil tyrants. You: "If there were no guns, then there would be no mass murdering anymore because there would be no weapon (except a bomb) that could kill masses amount of people. I mean, it's pretty difficult to kill a great number of people with just a knife, right?" My response: This is where your argument falls apart. The simple fact is, guns certainly aren't just going to disappear off the face of the Earth. Even if you ban guns in every city, country and continent in the world (which will never happen), criminals will still find a way to obtain them and kill enormous amounts of (unarmed) innocent people. Next, a knife isn't the only thing other than guns that can be used to kill people: In 2016, 10,497 Americans were killed by drunk drivers. Should we ban alcohol outright? Should we ban cars? The lifetime odds of being killed in the US from any murderer with a gun are 1 in 315. 1 in 108 deaths are due to all motor vehicle incidents. 1 in every 122 Americans are killed annually from... falling. Should we ban stairs? These are compared to ALL gun-related incidents. However, you were talking specifically about mass shootings. While these are unexplainable acts of evil and terror, the odds of being killed in a mass shooting in the US are 1 in 11,125. 1 in 1,133 are killed by drowning. Should we ban pools and visiting lakes, rivers, etc.? 1 in every 2,499 are killed in airplanes, boats and spaceships. Should we ban those? The people riding them? 1 in 2,517 are killed by assault from any sharp object. Should we ban knives? Everyday cooking ware? 1 in every 4,030 Americans will be killed in bicycling incidents. Should we ban bicycles, and every other form of transportation vehicle, for that matter? All of these previously mentioned items could become a weapon, if abused by a psychopath. The point is, when trying to outlaw anything, there will be repercussions. One last point: 2.5 million law-abiding citizens use firearms to save lives every year. 30,000 citizens are killed in firearm-related incidents annually (2/3 of which are suicides). Guns are used to save lives 227 times more than they are used in homicides. Lastly, I appreciate your willingness to have a real debate. Far too many are so closed-minded and quick to make gross accusations, but you are clearly open to a real conversation.