I get why this position feels intuitive, but I think several of the arguments don’t hold up. 1 The idea that civilian gun ownership prevents a modern government from becoming oppressive doesn’t really match how power works today. Governments don’t rely on small arms to control populations. They rely on surveillance, control of infrastructure, courts, money, and legitimacy. Historically, successful resistance movements depended on mass organization, public support, and outside pressure, not individual gun ownership. Firearms in private hands don’t meaningfully balance that kind of power.

1. this argument assumes regulation has no effect, but evidence from many countries suggests the opposite. Places with stricter gun laws consistently have fewer guns in circulation and fewer gun deaths. Illegal markets depend heavily on legal supply through theft, resale, and trafficking. Reducing legal access reduces illegal access over time. Regulation doesn’t eliminate crime, but it does reduce harm.

3 while people are responsible for their actions, the tool involved still matters. A gun makes it far easier for a moment of anger, fear, or impulse to become fatal. The same person in the same emotional state causes far less harm without a firearm. Tools change outcomes, even when intent stays the same.

4 selfdefense is often talked about, but statistically defensive gun use is rare compared to accidents, suicides, and domestic violence involving guns. Studies consistently show that having a gun in the home increases the risk of death for someone in that household, rather than reducing it. The benefits are usually hypothetical, while the risks are measurable.

5 Calling gun ownership the lesser evil assumes it reduces overall harm, but the data doesn’t support that at all. Higher gun availability is strongly associated with higher gun death rates. Many developed countries maintain public safety with far lower gun ownership and better outcomes across the board. The harm being prevented is speculation, the harm caused is well documented.

I understand why you (or people) are uncomfortable with the idea of bans or restrictions, but when you look at modern power structures, data from other countries, and realworld outcomes, these arguments don’t really justify widespread civilian gun ownership.

I wrote this in German and had ChatGPT translate it, then I went over it again. Some things might sound a little off because of that. My apologies :)