I also believe "freedom" is the issue. But the "self-defense" argument is necessary as the argument deepens. The other side believe that guns are the issue (and they never care about "freedom").
I think this is a mischaracterization. I alluded to what I think the foundational issue is much earlier in the thread when I spoke about the "Freedom Argument". I think the issue is responsibility to others. In other words, I think if a responsible person sees that a particular action can reduce harm for others then they should consider that action as an ethical choice. As individuals who live in a democratic society you have an opportunity to choose to reduce the violence in your society- to do so by opting out of the freedom to own some weapons. I believe you should vote laws into action that reduce your freedoms, yes. But a freedom given up freely is not a loss of freedom. As parents we give up freedoms to take responsible care of our children. This is not tyranny. It is Ethics. Sometimes, even though we ourselves are responsible and would never behave in particular fashion even though it is not against the law, we need to enact laws that prevent the less responsible from behaving foolishly, or dangerously. Sometimes we should do this even if it reduces our personal freedom. Freedom divorced from responsibility is anti-social. Freedom completely divorced from responsibility is sociopathic.
Once again, Gun control does not have to mean prohibition, It just means greater controls. What if instead of being able to order 6000 rounds of ammunition anonymously to his apartment , James Holmes had to purchase them from the local Police Department and answer some questions first. If you are a responsible gun owner why would this be an imposition?