It is indeed, a wrong idea. Nevertheless, it is an idea that needs to be addressed, not swept-aside. The same goes with all the other arguments I mentioned. If we just ignore these and say "There is no possible reason for owning guns" we are essentially arguing in bad faith.

Generally, convincing people isn't helped by immediately dismissing their entire position as trivially wrong and deluded.

> Generally, convincing people isn't helped by immediately dismissing their entire position as trivially wrong and deluded.

Who's doing that, though? Seems like a very small minority of people say "there is no possible reason for owning guns" and then refuses to elaborate when presented with possible reasons.

Don't open with "there's no possible reason for owning guns". Perhaps open with 'on balance, I think the arguments for gun ownership are far outweighed by the arguments against it'.

Sure. But in that case I'd ask that people on the other side of the debate not open with blatantly absolutist statements as well.

Let's not hold the two sides to different standards of argumentation.

Keep in mind, the US Military is largely composed of American humans.

Sure. I don't think a potential dictator would stand a chance if he/she didn't have the support of the US military, or at least the support of enough of it to suppress the rest. Either way, private-citizen gun owners are a rounding error in the equation. They just don't matter in this scenario.