The right to defend yourself is a natural right, owning a gun allows you to defend yourself.

There's no such thing as a natural right. Every righ is instituted.

Now it is preferable to live than to die, as a biological being. That's for sure.

But you talk like there is a danger so prevalent in our societies that owning gun is the only solution to make sure we live rather than we die.

I disagree. You base your claim that we should be free to own guns on nothing but irrealistic situations, that would actually make worse in this regard (living rather than dying) the situations we are realistically expected to face.

Guns do a terrible job at defending yourself and they make your life riskier.

The situations in which a gun would successfuly allow to defend yourself in a way that no other tool would do are so stretched out that it seems to me that you're just fear-mongering.

This is even more visible as you just contradict yourself in your argumentation.

First you justifiy your claim that we should be free to own guns by saying it is to make your life more secure (defending yourself, living rather than dying, and so on), and then you admit that it makes it riskier and that a society with this right would admit more deaths and injuries than without, but you now justify your claim by saying that's acceptable because freedom is more important than security/peace/bodily integrity/living.

Now you use this argument against me:

So you want to take away people's rights based on your feelings being hurt? This is not how it works.

But then you take the same stance, thus contradicting yourself once more:

You know what makes me feel less safe? Having my individual rights be taken away by a government monopoly on violence and more. No thanks.

You then talk about past revolutions without taking in account the changes I explained in technology that makes the scenario you described less and less realistic.

Because it worked before doesn't mean it would work now or in the future.

You talk like you live in a violent tyranny or like it will necessarily happen, exactly like I said before you're talking about a possible world without showing why we should accept that you're actually talking about our actual world.

That would not be a problem if you didn't use this as a global background to assert your claims.

But yet, even though you didn't show we live in the world you describe, I addressed your points as if it was true to show that your "solutions" would make things worse if anything.