Yeah, it's kind of stupid, the argument for "defending ourselves against government". There is no limit to this logic. Why not let people buy a Tank? An assault helicopter, or even a nuclear or chemical weapon for that matter? Where does it stop? You have to draw the line somewhere. For instance, should we even regulate not owning pointy kitchen knives? That would be going to far of course, but just to prove my point that you have to draw a line somewhere.

Banning weapons completely? No. But making it mandatory to have thorough background checks to obtain a license, limit the sale of assault rifles or automatic weapons. In the end, protecting against the government would be effective enough if you are able to own a regular one-shot rifle.

Finally, the point that places where people own more guns there is less crime is also bullshit science. Unless you can prove that there isn't a third intermediary variable that influences the outcome, it's not a proven correlation. For instance, crime in Sweden or Finland is magnitudes below that of the US. And there are barely NO guns there. So... how do you explain that? Comparing within the US without looking outside is just being narrow minded.