So it seems an argument from what seems to be actually reflected people is about the ability to protect yourself. Let me show you my mindset, coming from a country where guns aren't common, and why I don't need a gun to protect myself.
I don't think anyone in the world is opposed to the idea that you should be allowed to defend yourself. The difference in opinion here comes not from the idea that you should be allowed to defend yourself, but what that defense should be. I would never entertain the idea of needing a gun to feel safe. To me the problem is two-fold. If I am in a situation where I need a gun to be able to safely defend myself, would have to be a situation where I'm not sure the other party has a gun. So I need a gun to defend myself from guns. In a situation like that, I'd never feel safe. Yes, I'd have a higher chance of getting out of it, maybe, but I'd stay away from situations like that with all my might, because I would simply not feel safe in a situation where I can't be sure if others have guns.
The other part is that when defense is about one-upping your opponent, things escalate extremely quickly. In my city, other people's fists would be what I'd have to look out for. If you need a knife to feel safe with that, then suddenly knives are the norm. So you need a gun, then guns are the norm. So you need assault rifles.
Where does the line of self-defense go, anyway? I don't expect to be able to defend my country if we're invaded. I'm not trained in the military, so I would only do harm, even if I had a gun and was a good shot. Is it a defense against individuals? 9/11 was done by individuals. The bombing in Oslo was done by an individual. I can't hope to defend myself against that. I don't want to be able to defend myself against that. I feel extremely safe. I never fear for bodily harm from other people when I'm out on a regular day. That comes from deterrence and punishment; education and culture.
If people around me live in a state where they feel they can harm me because the law won't catch them is a country where you need to be able to defend yourself. That's not how it should be. People should stay away from violent crimes due to punishment, rapid apprehension and low fall-off rate in cases. A punishment system that builds on rehabilitation might also be key. I don't REALLY think the police could defend me if I'm held at gunpoint, but there's something ingrained in my society that makes people not do these things. And this is my government's successful crack-down on crime.
I do trust my government to protect me, so I don't have to have what the police have to be able to feel safe. Then I don't need to one-up my potential aggressors, and this in turn holds the "chosen weapon" (fist / knife / gun) to a low level that in any rate helps me survive. In a way, choosing away a right to have a gun against anyone that threatens my well-being might not only increase my survival rate due to a less severe form of aggression, but it in turn also lowers the survival rate of those that are fought back against.
Guns for the citizens of a country is all in all detrimental to the society I wish to live in. Someone that gets access to those guns are going to do something stupid. So instead of punching a random guy in the face, he's shot. So the victim needs a gun to protect against that, and it spirals.
I don't think an armed militia is key to preserve a free state, either. If your government is out of line, there are very civilized ways to protest and demand change. In one of the most advanced countries in the world, the last thing that should be needed is the ability to shoot your government in the face if they do something wrong.
Even though these are my opinions, it doesn't mean it's easy to alter the culture of US, which is probably its prevailing factor in contributing to a high gun-related death rate. Taking the statistics of Switzerland should play to that fact, since they have a lot of guns, and few gun-related murders. So it's not that a country where guns are normal to have is the problem, but how we respect those guns and respect other people. The question is if you can change that part of a culture without restricting guns. Norway has already proven that a country where no one has guns, one moron can still take some and kill too many people. No matter how many or few guns are in circulation, those tragedies are not fixed by fewer or more guns. The first part about fewer guns is important to remember when discussing gun rights, the second about more guns is important to remember when talking about safety.
Safety should not come at the cost of freedom.
EDIT: It seems people hold the idea that history is indication to the government doing harm to its people. Yes it is. But we're not in the 1700s or 1500s anymore. If the US government started doing horrible things to its people, the rest of the world wouldn't leave it up to a poorly trained militia to handle it. We're part of a global community, and with that comes an intergovernmental defense. And a militia can do very little against an army. The training they go through will mean your good shot will still not work against their advanced flanking tactics. Even if it ever came to infantry vs militia. If you really want to nit-pick at the second amendment, you should fight for the right to own tanks and fighter-jets.
