Its kind of an almost circular argument problem.
It
originally
comes from the fact that our country exists because of a rebellion. If we didnt have guns, we wouldn't have been able to tell the British to go fuck off. Since the victors get to write the history, clearly this means that guns are necessary in case our new government decides to get uppity like the last one.
Over time this has morphed into a kind of 'self-defense' ideology. It doesn't really matter who it was targeted at - criminals, the government, just people who might want to harm you, etc. The idea was we had a right to defend ourselves, and you can't do that if you don't have a weapon, and nobody's gonna being a sword to a gun fight.
This in turn also morphs into a 'People who are able to defend themselves are strong, people who defend themselves have guns, therefor having guns is cool' kind of empowerment fantasy. (Or reality, to be honest. Lets be frank, if you have a gun, you DO have power to a degree).
And since guns are cool, everyone wants them. And once everyone wants them, lots of people get them, and then everyone
needs
them for self defense because again... you don't bring a gun to a sword fight. Hence the common argument that even if you weren't allowed to have guns, criminal elements would still find ways to get them, and so we might as well have them. Which is of course completely logical. Mind you, it ignores the issues of 'if more people have guns, then more people can commit crimes of passion without preparation', but thats what it is.
