Is it not a common theme that a more powerful government offers greater stability with fewer freedoms while a weak government offers more freedom but also more chaos?
I lived for the first part of my life in Bangladesh. A relative was killed in a workers' strike, by an explosive device. Our house was the target of armed thugs who tried to break down our gate and rob us. Once, on a visit from the U.S., my family had to return from our hotel to the airport under armed guard because the streets were not safe during a strike.
That's not freedom! The fact that we could overthrow the government with small arms is not freedom. Especially in a democracy, because it represents political minorities imposing their will to overthrow a government that represents the majority. That's oppression! Any day of the week, I'd prefer a democratic government that can blow me away with a drone strike to one that can't keep criminals and radicals at bay.
I'm not saying guns are some sort of quick and easy solution, since there is clearly a problem of lack of many types of abundance that pushed people into radical positions, although you are making the case for one centralization of power over another. Given those two options I would agree with you, but the third option is to try to prevent centralization of power and the incentives to abuse it in the first place.