Precisely. Policing in any country is always a mix of public service and protection racket. A police monopoly on protecting people from other people, or society from itself, leaves no safety for anyone.

It's ironic that some of the most vociferously anti-gun people in the US are also the ones with the clearest view of the police as an armed gang. But absent armed police and without the right to protect themselves, what do they think will fill the vacuum?

People don't agree on whether there is a positive or negative correlation between security and safety; whether increased security makes the society more or less safe. Some people also think that everyone interested in security (including the police, the military, and people buying guns for self defense) is inherently suspicious.

Trust makes the society safe. When there is a lack of trust, careful security measures can be used to compensate. But security can also lead to an arms race that makes everyone less safe, as measures that improve someone's safety may have a negative effect on others.

> But security can also lead to an arms race that makes everyone less safe, as measures that improve someone's safety may have a negative effect on others.

The stoic natural rights theory on which the US is founded definitely tips the balance towards self-defense over the collective. It’s the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

The hard part is stopping the self-defense at armed individuals. And not escalating from armed individuals to armed gangs. From armed gangs to criminal organizations capable of challenging the state. From criminal organizations to regional warlords replacing the state. And from regional warlords to conquerors establishing a new state.

> The problem with a police state is that state violence becomes a way to exercise political power.

The historical evidence shows that countering a police state / authoritative government with violence/force is less effect than with non-violence:

* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44096650

Since 1900, if a movement used violence in their methods for change they had a success rate of 25%; movements with non-violence had success 40% of the time. Further, most movements who did use violence to have a 'change of government' were much more likely to end up with authoritative government.

Other than the obvious confounding factors, I feel this has to have some cherry picking or selective interpretation of what is a non-violent movement. Almost always there's some non-violent action preceding a violent movement, the question is at which stage they get quashed, fail to become much bigger, and then people have to resort to violence.

All the incidents used in the count are in Appendix A, and are part of a publicly available database used by researchers in the field.

You wrote a lot but said nothing.

How does owning a firearm protect you from state violence without an implied threat to shoot police?