Maybe our guns do stave off tyranny, or would if they had to. — Srap Tasmaner

There's no maybe about it- they don't.

I didn't mean to be cryptic. You encouraged me to spend "time thinking about the people who deal everyday with the death and destruction brought about by real people using real guns."

There are are shit-ton more threats to people to worry about if we want to worry about threats to people. Sure, the "blowed up real good" "if it bleeds it leads" morbid curiosity of man draws him to the horror of "BANG", but it's really just a drop in the bucket of blood, and a waste if we are to devote time and resources toward people who suffer from this or that. Sometimes I think gun control advocates (victim families excluded) are more infatuated with guns than the prototypical, insecure, lightly-endowed freak, fondling his guns in the basement.

So your position is that there are things worse than guns, plus guns might or might not guarantee our liberty.

So your position is that there are things worse than guns, plus guns might or might not guarantee our liberty. — Srap Tasmaner

Definitely the former, and not simply "might", but "probably", on the latter.

I don't think a Right (compare "privilege") should be infringed because someone decides to kill themselves with a gun. Same with accident. Same with peer-to-peer criminal engagement. I don't think a right should be infringed if an innocent victim of violence, where a gun was used, could have been saved had the state enforced the countless laws already on the books. That leaves us with innocent victims of violence where a gun was used. While I don't believe the gun is at fault, we can table that argument for the time being and I will stipulate, for the sake of this argument, that the gun shot the victim. That brings us to my point:

When society (particularly those in favor of gun control) gets it's house in order on a whole panoply of other causes that lead to the horrendous grief of victims and/or survivors, then we can circle back to the issue of the infringement of a Right. But I don't think you will find my position has changed. Indeed, if society will clean up all those other problems, then I don't think there will be much in the way of innocent victims of gun crime to worry about.

https://blog.reedsy.com/list-forceful-verbs/?fbclid=IwAR0TbLrN4DYt-IWd8QF-rhtgzzTNNgAiAIJ30N1I55ObkKpwj5eB8OH0G7A

I don't think infringement is the right idea here at all. The social contract is not a matter of what infringement of your rights you're willing to put up with, but of you anteing up: you throw in your lot with these people and commit to making it, or not, together. There are benefits to be had, and it's why people strike this bargain, but you have to give some things up too.

I believe it was Max Weber who defined the state as an institution possessing "a monopoly on the legitimate use of force". That's generally part of the bargain: we don't all go around keeping order and enforcing the law, only some of us. If you incline toward a natural rights view, you could say the rest of us transfer, as it were, our natural right to use force to those among us we deputize for the purpose, and then we demand that they meet our expectations in doing so. It's a sweet enough deal that almost everyone goes for it, or would love to if only they could get the chance.

Everyone except law-abiding American gun owners and criminals the world over.

I'll let you have the last word. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.

The social contract is not a matter of what infringement of your rights you're willing to put up with, but of you anteing up: you throw in your lot with these people and commit to making it, or not, together. — Srap Tasmaner

I happen to agree with the concept of the social contract, as amended, or interpreted by the United States Constitution. Our founding fathers went over all this quite some time ago, informed by their experience in life. Most were well-read men of the enlightenment, with a good grounding in Greek, Latin, philosophy, politics and the affairs of man, not to mention vast, cumulative real-world experience. I know a lot of people these days think those old white guys are no longer relevant, but they provided a way to deal with that, too.