Is there a legitimate argument for a nationwide confiscation of guns?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Here's the thing I've never been able to square. Gun nuts claim:

1) Guns don't kill people, because if people really want to kill someone, they'll find a way.

2) If people don't have guns, they won't be able to defend themselves from the government.

Wouldn't (1) imply that if the government really wanted to kill people they'd be able to do so without guns, or that if citizens really wanted to resist the government they'd be able to do so without guns?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Here's the thing I've never been able to square. Gun nuts claim:

1) Guns don't kill people, because if people really want to kill someone, they'll find a way.

2) If people don't have guns, they won't be able to defend themselves from the government.

Wouldn't (1) imply that if the government really wanted to kill people they'd be able to do so without guns, or that if citizens really wanted to resist the government they'd be able to do so without guns?

Yes, the government would ostensibly have better weapons. But guerrilla tactics with firearms could do a lot to buy time and lives. 

Peace movements sometimes do work but sometimes they don't. How brutal is your government?

How brutal they are doesn't matter, right? If I want to kill them, it doesn't matter if I have a gun, I'll find a way, right?

[Slander and/or Libel]

A republic can be successful without private gun ownership. It's a pretty low priority on the liberties and rights that liberal democracies ensure. By that notion, perhaps there is.

Unless you know, you go full socialist like Venezuela and can't revolt because you don't have guns.

It sounds like you're either saying that James Hodgkinson was right, or that only the Right can decide when they want murderous anarchy instead of law. (I don't agree with either position.)

False dichotomy, one lone gunman is not a rebellion no more than a school shooter is.  And the right cannot both be "fascist" and want "murderous anarchy", another pair of false statements.

You're the one brining up the right and fascism here. I'm responding to you. And now it appears that you're on Stalin's bandwagon where after you murder enough people it becomes okay. (Another position I vehemently disagree with.)

Perhaps your real position should be that the gun industry has a right to its current business model no matter how many people die as a result? I mean, it's still reprehensible, but you wouldn't have to keep making up new illogical excuses for it.

How about this? People have the right to defend themselves against those that wish them harm.  A rebellion is a defense against a tyrannical government. It's also used in last resort, when more civil methods have failed (again, as it has in Venezuela... now the Russians are propping up the dictator) . They would've had a chance at resolving it themselves if they assassinated Maduro.

But if they *really* wanted to rebel, they’d find a way with or without guns, right? Guns don’t kill people, etc?

[Slander and/or Libel]

A republic can be successful without private gun ownership. It's a pretty low priority on the liberties and rights that liberal democracies ensure. By that notion, perhaps there is.

Unless you know, you go full socialist like Venezuela and can't revolt because you don't have guns.

It sounds like you're either saying that James Hodgkinson was right, or that only the Right can decide when they want murderous anarchy instead of law. (I don't agree with either position.)

False dichotomy, one lone gunman is not a rebellion no more than a school shooter is.  And the right cannot both be "fascist" and want "murderous anarchy", another pair of false statements.

You're the one brining up the right and fascism here. I'm responding to you. And now it appears that you're on Stalin's bandwagon where after you murder enough people it becomes okay. (Another position I vehemently disagree with.)

Perhaps your real position should be that the gun industry has a right to its current business model no matter how many people die as a result? I mean, it's still reprehensible, but you wouldn't have to keep making up new illogical excuses for it.

How about this? People have the right to defend themselves against those that wish them harm.  A rebellion is a defense against a tyrannical government. It's also used in last resort, when more civil methods have failed (again, as it has in Venezuela... now the Russians are propping up the dictator) . They would've had a chance at resolving it themselves if they assassinated Maduro.

But if they *really* wanted to rebel, they’d find a way with or without guns, right? Guns don’t kill people, etc?

Guns are a tool.  Yes, you could walk everywhere, but it's easier to use a tool like bike, motorcycle or car.  Guns make it easier for people that have them to exercise power or defense.

Ah, so you mean, like, it makes it a whole lot easier to kill a whole lot of people really quickly at a distance? Almost like the people in favor of gun control have been saying all along?

[Slander and/or Libel]

A republic can be successful without private gun ownership. It's a pretty low priority on the liberties and rights that liberal democracies ensure. By that notion, perhaps there is.

Unless you know, you go full socialist like Venezuela and can't revolt because you don't have guns.

It sounds like you're either saying that James Hodgkinson was right, or that only the Right can decide when they want murderous anarchy instead of law. (I don't agree with either position.)

False dichotomy, one lone gunman is not a rebellion no more than a school shooter is.  And the right cannot both be "fascist" and want "murderous anarchy", another pair of false statements.

You're the one brining up the right and fascism here. I'm responding to you. And now it appears that you're on Stalin's bandwagon where after you murder enough people it becomes okay. (Another position I vehemently disagree with.)

Perhaps your real position should be that the gun industry has a right to its current business model no matter how many people die as a result? I mean, it's still reprehensible, but you wouldn't have to keep making up new illogical excuses for it.

How about this? People have the right to defend themselves against those that wish them harm.  A rebellion is a defense against a tyrannical government. It's also used in last resort, when more civil methods have failed (again, as it has in Venezuela... now the Russians are propping up the dictator) . They would've had a chance at resolving it themselves if they assassinated Maduro.

But if they *really* wanted to rebel, they’d find a way with or without guns, right? Guns don’t kill people, etc?

Guns are a tool.  Yes, you could walk everywhere, but it's easier to use a tool like bike, motorcycle or car.  Guns make it easier for people that have them to exercise power or defense.

Ah, so you mean, like, it makes it a whole lot easier to kill a whole lot of people really quickly at a distance? Almost like the people in favor of gun control have been saying all along?

Or one at a very long distance. You want to make an omelette; you gotta break a few eggs.

So are you concluding, then, that there are some people dead because of guns who, with fewer guns available, might not be dead? Because the standard gun advocate position is that people with murder on their mind will be able to do it no matter what, but I can't imagine 58 people at a country concert in Las Vegas getting killed with a hammer.

[Slander and/or Libel]

A republic can be successful without private gun ownership. It's a pretty low priority on the liberties and rights that liberal democracies ensure. By that notion, perhaps there is.

Unless you know, you go full socialist like Venezuela and can't revolt because you don't have guns.

It sounds like you're either saying that James Hodgkinson was right, or that only the Right can decide when they want murderous anarchy instead of law. (I don't agree with either position.)

False dichotomy, one lone gunman is not a rebellion no more than a school shooter is.  And the right cannot both be "fascist" and want "murderous anarchy", another pair of false statements.

You're the one brining up the right and fascism here. I'm responding to you. And now it appears that you're on Stalin's bandwagon where after you murder enough people it becomes okay. (Another position I vehemently disagree with.)

Perhaps your real position should be that the gun industry has a right to its current business model no matter how many people die as a result? I mean, it's still reprehensible, but you wouldn't have to keep making up new illogical excuses for it.

How about this? People have the right to defend themselves against those that wish them harm.  A rebellion is a defense against a tyrannical government. It's also used in last resort, when more civil methods have failed (again, as it has in Venezuela... now the Russians are propping up the dictator) . They would've had a chance at resolving it themselves if they assassinated Maduro.

But if they *really* wanted to rebel, they’d find a way with or without guns, right? Guns don’t kill people, etc?

Guns are a tool.  Yes, you could walk everywhere, but it's easier to use a tool like bike, motorcycle or car.  Guns make it easier for people that have them to exercise power or defense.

Ah, so you mean, like, it makes it a whole lot easier to kill a whole lot of people really quickly at a distance? Almost like the people in favor of gun control have been saying all along?

Or one at a very long distance. You want to make an omelette; you gotta break a few eggs.

So are you concluding, then, that there are some people dead because of guns who, with fewer guns available, might not be dead? Because the standard gun advocate position is that people with murder on their mind will be able to do it no matter what, but I can't imagine 58 people at a country concert in Las Vegas getting killed with a hammer.

Do you understand the concept of "negative externalities"? Without cars, more people would be alive from accidents and the pollution they create.  Same with factories, or just about any piece of technology.  There is a cost to pay.  Freedom isn't free, as they say. 
 
You can't force everyone to live in a damn safety bubble in the hope of saving a handful of lives and hinder the lives of many others.  Why do you think the US hasn't been invaded? Because 1/3 of the country, and most of the rural areas are armed.  There's a questionable quote supposedly by Admiral Yamamoto during WW2: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Yeah, guns aren't cars, and apocryphal quotes and pretending Red Dawn is real aren't really arguments, dude.