Gunman reportedly takes hostages at bowling alley in Nuneaton

If we take the USA's system, in order for the government to be a tyranny whom the public needs guns to defend from, the following would need to happen;

(1) The public would have to vote in a leader, whom they hadn't suspected would be a tyrant
(2) The public would then have to also vote in a congressional majority of people who support said tyrant
(3) The Supreme Court Justices would have to replaced with those who support the tyrant
(4) The tyrannical leader would have to keep the loyalty of the police and armed forces

I.e, it is not going to happen. The USA has a ruthlessly effective system of checks and balances.

The comparison to fascist regimes in the 1920s and 30s is rather useless. Not least because countries like Germany and Italy at the time had nothing like the constitutional framework and solidity of a country like the USA or UK. There is no reason to have guns 'just in case', because it is not going to happen.

The British system has prevented tyrannies for centuries. It is one of the strongest legal and judicial systems out there. There is absolutely no reason to doubt it at all.

But even if we accept the tyranny argument, why stop at guns? If there is a genuine threat of tyranny, why not let the public have their own tanks and war planes? Why only give them guns?

You’re still either struggling to read or wilfully ignoring me. I have said “clearly we’re never going to agree on the tyranny part, how about addressing my other arguments in support of private gun ownership” and “the right to bear arms is qualified right, it’s limited...”

It is relevant though, clearly. If someone is going to argue that people in the USA need guns to prevent tyranny, it shows they aren't really interested in engaging in substantive debate given how absurd the claim is.

I want to know how the USA becomes a tyranny... are the public going to vote in a tyrant and then vote in a tyrannical congress who then votes in a tyrannical Supreme Court. Meanwhile keeping control of the armed forces?

But the crucial point is this; the only way that America could become a tyranny is if they were to vote in tyrants. If the public vote in tyrants then why would they need guns, given they wanted them voted in?

I don't agree to disagree. I don't agree that someone of your intellect could seriously consider the argument that Americans need guns to prevent tyranny, as convincing.

With regards to the second amendment, it was written at a time when the capability, range and type of guns are nothing like they are today. The law should evolve with time.

Okay we agree to disagree. Give one reason as to why private gun ownership should be banned

Okay we agree to disagree. Give one reason as to why private gun ownership should be banned

Evidence?

As I've already said, estimates tend to start at around 500,000 for the number of defensive uses of firearms each year.

The fact you 'disagree' that they don't need guns to protect themselves from the government is quite alarming.

Can you explain the circumstances of how such a situation could possibly arise?

I don't 'agree to disagree'. I don't agree that someone of your intellect could hold that view with any degree of sincerity.

Because I don't think ordinary members of the public should have access to such a dangerous and lethal weapon.

There is considerably more gun crime and mass shootings in the USA that allows gun ownership in comparison to countries which do not allow it. Which seems like a fairly large reason to disallow it.

Scientific American recently looked at this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

Their article is looking at whether guns are an effective deterrent to crime, not trying investigate how often they’re used defensively.

It also covers the latter aspect and its rarity.

You seem to be keen to ignore the fact that tyrannical governments have existed all over the world. As I have continually said, it’s highly unlikely to happen in the US but seeing as you can’t show a net negative of private gun ownership continuing, why not allow people to have firearms just in case?

Gun ownership has gone up whilst murder has gone down; studies suggest that less than 20% of gun crime is committed with legally possessed guns.

Mostly in countries without law and order, and with no history of democracy and a judicial and legal system nowhere near as secure and effective as that of the USA.

Plus, in some of the examples you gave, the public actually voted the tyrant in. So why would the public need guns to protect themselves from a tyrant that they've voted in?

There is no 'just in case' because it is not going to happen. You may as well say they should have guns just in case aliens invade. It's not even nearly convincing as justification to say 'just in case' when it is not going to happen.

Do you think we should have guns in Britain just in case?

Overall murder or murder from guns? Because gun homicides have certainly risen.

Again the legal/non-legal argument is irrelevant. The prevalence of legal guns makes it far, far more likely that guns will be acquired illegally as you have far more guns in circulation.

America has absolutely no history of democracy as its a representative republic, not a democracy. That's made abundantly clear by the founding fathers, James Madison in particular. In a country of 300,000,000 people 538 of them decide who the next president is.

By what measure are you defining the American legal system as 'secure' and 'effective'?

It's incredibly unlikely as I've said but you can't definitely say it won't ever happen. There are lots of things that happen everyday that seem incredibly unlikely.

The two countries are not remotely comparable on the issue of guns. Also, as you've ignored a dozen times, I've given other reasons as to why private gun ownership should not be banned in the US despite the fact that the burden isn't on me to do so.

You seem very sure of this despite having no evidence to back it up. If gun private gun ownership was banned a black market would inevitably pop up, no one can know what impact that would have on the number of guns.

The public would have to vote in a tyrannical president, vote in a tyrannical congress and have the president and congress appoint a tyrannical Supreme Court. All while keeping the army and security services on side.

It's not going to happen. The checks and balances of the US system are ruthlessly effective. They make it incredibly difficult to get controversial legislation passed given the number of hurdles and institutions that can prevent it (Presidential Veto, Congress vote, Supreme Court). The chances of a tyrant taking over all branches of government is about as close to zero as you can get.

If it's incredibly unlikely then it's a weak justification. I can't think of things that happen every day that are as incredibly unlikely as all three branches of the US government being taken over by tyrants.

If anything the US has stronger safeguards than the UK when it comes to tyranny. In the UK, a PM with a majority can pretty much legally pass anything they want, given that our Supreme Court has no strike down power and we do not have 'constitutional laws' that require super majorities to be amended.

The institutions of government are much more separate in the US. A president does not have control of their congressional party in the same way a Prime Minister has control of their parliamentary party.

The more guns in circulation, the easier it is to get a gun.

That's not true, the last step would be the only one necessary. If a president could exercise absolute control over the military and police forces they could very easily control the country.

As I've said a million times we're clearly never going to agree on the tyrant point, it's entirely speculative and thus I am finished debating it.