If there was historically no 2nd Amendment there would be no RKBA and therefore there would be no guns and therefore there would be no gun-related violence in the United States.

Isn’t criminal behaviour, human behaviour that is against the law? As criminals are not allowed to purchase or own guns, criminals should in theory not have access to any guns which allows them to commit murder. When they commit criminal acts such as murder through gun related use, where do they get their guns from? Is it that they were originally law abiding citizens who had owned guns who then became criminals who then go on to murder their victim with the gun? Do law abiding citizens give guns to criminals? If so, does that not make them criminals? Why do criminals use guns anyway? Is it because law abiding citizens have guns because they have the right as law abiding citizens to lawfully keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment or is it due to the need to own a gun because criminals have guns. Are law abiding citizens allowed to kill criminals with their guns allowed to remain as law abiding citizens or do they become criminals themselves? This must depend on whether the act of killing with the gun was legal or illegal under the law I suppose. Do criminals who have guns who kill law abiding citizens under the same circumstances still remain criminals? As they are criminals who are not allowed to have a legally owned gun but have killed someone legally under the law, as in, say trespass on private property in Texas after nightfall, are they regarded as law abiding citizens or as criminals? What happen to law enforcement officers who kills a legally armed law abiding citizen with their legally held gun? Do they then become criminals? What happens if they kill an illegally armed criminal in the same way? Do they then become a criminal or a hero?

The 2nd Amendment – the criminal justice industries friend. If there were no guns in America and there were no criminals and no fear of criminals exactly how many would this put out of work?

I agree with you that criminals (human beings who have a history of law breaking) who have access to guns are ultimately responsible for the majority of deaths caused by gun shot wounding (if they killed someone unlawfully by definition they are now a criminal), but there is also a measurable percentage of the total figure that also die from gun shot wounding accidents. Many contributors on the forum are undoubtedly responsible gun owners who know exactly what their firearms are capable of and they have ensured that their family members are also aware that a gun is not something to be played about with. But there are literally thousands of other US citizens who have died or have been seriously wounded every year because they lack safety training in the use of firearms.

The 2nd Amendment was fundamental to the beginnings of the revolutionary politics, which formed the United States of America, the right to keep and bear arms. It was a way to ensure an armed militia. A civilian territorial army in essence was created to protect the United States of America from enemies foreign and domestic. It was also a way to ensure the United States of America remained a constitutional democratic republic. RKBA was designed to ensure itself as the final arbitrator if the finely balanced constitutional arrangements went out of kilter. It was there to ensure that dictatorship, which would then transcend into monarchy, would never take hold. But it also has a downside. If ever that final arbitration is required, when the balance of power of the internal constitutional politics within the United States tips either one way or the other then a blood bath will quickly follow. It has happened once before and for the sake of the US and the World I hope it doesn't happen again. Of course now, the United States of America does not need an armed militia to protect itself from enemies foreign, it has its professional armed services.