Gun ownership is a right guaranteed by our Constitution, and I am a big fan of our Constitution.
Aside from that, however, it just makes sense when you consider the importance of protecting the weak. Imagine a scenario in which a violent mugger assaults an elderly woman. I'm being purposefully dramatic here, by the way.
In unarmed combat, the thug probably has a strong advantage. If he's armed with a pistol, he still has a strong advantage. If, however, she has a pistol that's a game changer.
Now, the playing field, which before was so dramatically tilted, has now leveled considerably. Armed or not, the violent have always had the advantage over their victims. Only when the would-be victims are armed is that advantage reduced. I've never quite understood why our liberal friends have never grasped this concept.