You're missing how often the presence of an armed individual actually escalates the situation.
A gun is a kind of sword that cuts both ways, good or bad. What it does is entirely dependent on how it is used, and why. It can be used badly, without good sense or good skill, and cause damage even in the hands of a well-intentioned person. It will not be used at all nor cause any harm unless a person has harm in mind in the first place. And the chances of that are greatly reduced by a fundamental reality that a wrong-doer can likely be stopped by an armed citizen whereever and whenever the wrongt-doer tries to act.....
If there are few guns, the same evil can be done with a knife, a baseball bat, or a rock. We need our guns because guns eliminate a lot of bad intentions before they are attempted. And they are a considerable fact for people who would use knives or rocks or bats.
There are some ways that guns contribute to safety and good manners in any society, and to law enforcement before the police can arrive. They reduce the numbers of law enforcement officers we really need, because in the hands of good citizens, not gangs or criminals, they are just as good as law enforcement.
The mere presence of an armed individual is just as good as the mere presence of a police officer, if the armed individual is intent upon using it for lawful purposes.
The mere presence of a rioter..... with a bomb, a rock, whatever..... the mere presence of a criminal with any effective tool, even bare hands, is the relevant fact that can be addressed by an armed person intent on enforcing human rights or good laws, most effectively.
I presume you object to the "escalation" of the situation generally. Pay more attention to the initial creation of the situation, and the practical means to end it with a good outcome..
