This post should have appeared inside another thread concerning the bad handling of this issue in the democratic uk. The thread got sucked into one of those data base incidents
The democratic uk relies on a gun control to achieve one of the democratic right: security.
Yet there were a malfunction somewhere and someone found himself at a disadvantage facing a criminal with a gun. Something that would have not happened without the gun control etc...So if there is something to blame here, it is the state for the gun prohibition policy etc...

The thread was a good ground to put into light several features typical of democracy: the use of the state, the use of equality. This will show that the issues usually never lie in the applied version of democracy (liberal democracy, capitalist democracy, anarchist democracy, direct democracy, representative democracy, nazist democracy, anarcho-capitalist democracy, anarcho-communist democracy or whatever streams of thoughts democratic people claim is the best when they try to bind their destiny with the eternal nature of democracy...) but in democracy itself.

So democracy itself says that after an analysis of the individual, it found that individuals in general have a demand for security, hence security as a human right.

Now democratic people can be divided into two categories: those who want to get that right respected by gun control and those who want that right respected by right to bear arms.

Each time democracy appears for what it is, that is the best means of hiding selfish best interests behind the common welfare( the famous "it will be better for all if everyone etc...)

Pros gun control have generally no illusion about the efficiency of prohibition. Nearly by definition, a criminal is someone who refuses to obey the law and it is not because there is a law of prohibition that the criminal will surrender his natural right to bear a weapon. So in that configuration criminals can get a gun.
Somehow, pros gun control think that the distinction between those who want to live inside the democratic ring and those who dont want (the criminals) appears more readable since whoever is trying to get into possession of a gun and then acting against the law is someone who is likely to behave soonly like a criminal.
This somehow is expected to make the fight against people causing insecurity easier since by bearing a weapon, one is supposed to show clearly his intention of not living by the law.
So the abridgement of the natural right of bearing a weapon is somehow needed to help everyone to secure one's individual right to security.
Of course malfunctions happen and advocaters of the other systems moan because they are left at a disadvantage to criminals who have guns.
To that point, pros gun control generally answer that they are exactly in the same situation, in the same disadvantage to criminals and then the equality is not broken in that respect.

Summary: that category of democratic people
demand a token of acceptance of the democratic rules: not trying to get into possession of a gun.
reclaim equality with their democratic peers.

Pros guns bearing demand the abolition of gun control because it is ineffective and they ask to be able of not having to exhibit a respect of a rule.
They ask to be judged on their individual qualities which means that owning a gun doesnt imply using it in a criminal manner.
They consider weapons as a great equalizer between them and the criminals.
Depending on their sensitivity, they can either consider security as a general service or not. In every case, they are spreading their choice beyond themselves in a similar way the pro gun control are.
Since criminals in democracies are much often democratic people themselves, they act reasonably. A reasonable aggression is made on weaker people who have no means of retaliation. Definitively people who dont choose to own a gun in that kind of configuration of finger pointed targets for a criminal. If people want to enjoy their personal security they have to own a gun since malfunctions of the general service of security are as likely to happen as they are in the other configuration.
Here the abridged natural right is the right of being secure without owning a gun.

Summary: that category of democratic people
demand to consider on their current actions and not on a visible action of good will (the weapon doesnt make the criminals).
reclaim equality with the democratic criminals.

Global analysis:
What is the use of the state? Each time, the state embodies those who dont agree. The state isnt at fault by nature it is at fault because it implement the vision of one side and not the vision of the other. So definitively the nature of a state is not to be questioned here but well those who are behind it, something that is concealed in democracy, that naturally leans to consider state as an awful thing while actually it is a good thing since it serves here as a peaceful transition between those two opposite sides.
Here also appears the true nature of democracy. It is clear that none of these conceptions cant achieved what they are supposed to: that is security for all as they claim democracy is designed for.

The situation is quite simple: there are criminals. Now it is the time to decide who inside the democratic population should be the targets for those criminals.
Pros gun control prefer to offer a random choice to criminals, distributing the odds between everyone and by doing so diminishing their own chances of being taken as a target.
Pro gun bears prefer to rely on personal means of security to focuse the criminals' attention on those who dont own guns as less dangerous preys.
Both categories use democracy through two artifices: rights and equality, to impose their view on all while it is clear that by design they are unable of achieving what they promise.
Democracy appears for what it is: a system made on the behalf on all to serve the best interests of a few.