We accept some criminals escaping justice so that we minimize the number of innocent people who are deprived of their freedom. Most people don't find that provocative. It's the same basic argument to say that we accept some lesser evil (gun violence) to ensure a greater evil does not come to pass (tyranny). Assuming the first condition leada to the second.

If that protective mechanism (an armed populace) were functioning adequately, you would expect to see at least some fringe evidence of it both being active, and creating a benefit for society (ostensibly causing tyrants to back off). Bad as things are getting, we don't see evidence of either. Each day it becomes clearer that the argument is invalid.

I live in the south. I know lots of gun owners. Every one of them bases their whole concept of this right on self defense and civil duty. It's convenient to think that it's as simple as gun owners want to be able to play at being tough and have dangerous toys, and don't care about anyone else getting hurt. You're also not going to.change anyone's mind if you don't get to the reasons they actually believe what they do, right or wrong.

Just my 2 cents.