Personally to me its a cost benefit analysis. The second amendment was instituted not for home defense from your neighbor but home defense from the government (ie a well organized militia is necessary to assure security of a free state and the rights of people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Go read it yourself. I think its pretty hard to argue jefferson was thinking about US citizens shooting other US citizens in non war/ non uprising situations). Somehow over time that second amendment was morphed into all this personal protection stuff (right to carry, right to own, right to use in this situation and that situation etc) that really isn't in the constitution.
Anyway, about 10k people die each year via handguns. I think since the US has been a country 0 tyrants have been overthrown here with weapons unless you're counting lincoln, and he technically was not overthrown anyway. And many other countries without proliferative gun laws have managed to overthrow tyrants despite the soldiers being heavily armed and the people not being. The thing to remember is: soldiers are people too and they get tired and annoyed when they have to kill innocents and family members for a dick who sits in an ivory palace, shooting at them doesn't necessarily speed the process up either. In terms of overthrowing a tyrant, an armed populace brings very little to the table compared to say just a pissed off populace. (refer to pretty much every revolution/overthrow/etc in the history of the world. I think you'd be hard pressed to find one where the pure deaths of soldiers at the hands of an armed populace was the major driving factor for the overthrow of a dictator. Its usually way more dissent from the populace, the soldiers, and foreign pressure, support, and intervention)
Its a dangerous world out there. You can be hit by a car any day of the week for example. In fact you are way more likely to die in a car wreck than in any sort of gun related incident. Yet it doesn't make sense to have people rolling around in iron tanks in order to minimize the risk that IF some evil person decided to use their car to cause harm, you would have some protection. The gun argument honestly is the same. You can argue if that evil person in his car came, and you didn't have your big tank you would pray you you had a big tank and that the cops would come and save you and etc, but gee it sounds kind of ridiculous when you're talking about protection from car wielding maniacs, but when you're talking about gun wielding maniacs it seems to work for a lot of people.
On the flip side you could argue, gee honestly gun violence is so rare and kills so few people (10k a year compared to say 500,000 k from heart disease alone or the 100k motor vehicle accidents a year, or the smoking related deaths and etc) that perhaps we're overresponding to what is areally a very very trivial issue.
Again, cost benefit analysis and honestly I could go either way. I lean more towards the gun control crowd especially when I hear stories about how in germany the entire police force uses like 36 live bullets a year and ask myself gee why can't we do that here?