You brought up the argument of Hitler and Stalin, and then you pretty much admit that it's unlikely to happen.
Unlikely doesn't mean it won't happen. And having an armed population is part of what makes it so unlikely.
As you yourself admit, if it "could" happen, then your little gun isn't going to help you anyway. Thus the Hitler argument is a dead-end.
I think you missed my point.
Even if "my" gun won't help "me" as an individual, having a well armed citizenry is a deterrent against a tyrannical government and helps the population as a whole.
Would you be afraid to live in the UK? What if you were offered a great job there?
How is that relevant? right now I live in NYC where only criminals are allowed to have guns...
Of course it is. Weren't YOU the one who just stated that we need guns because Hitler would have loved gun control?
The reason why people (I'm talking about those who buy/own them legally, not criminals) are buying their guns is irrelevant to this argument, it's the fact that they have them that matters.
And it's not that Hitler "would have loved" gun control, it's that he was smart enough to know that that's where he needed to start.
We know that a crazed lunatic took a gun from his home that was legally owned by his mother and killed 20 children in a daycare. Please show me where twenty children were saved by a armed citizen with a gun. (not "could have been saved", but actually saved.)
I was hesitant to get into this part because it's a whole parshah of it's own, I probably shouldn't have...
Are the only lives that matter to this question daycare children? or are we talking about any innocent lives?
OK, that's it for me for now. No time for this crap. I'll check back in again tonight...
Note to self: don't comment on controversial topics on the internet on a day you're planning on getting work done.