This is literally empirically false. Guns haven’t proliferated across the world. There are countless examples of locales that decided to and succeeded in not having guns proliferate in their region.
[1] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-where-police-d...
Every country, including democracies, have deployed surveillance against their own people. Giving your rulers, and big companies, exclusive access to this technology is just asking for an authoritarian nightmare.
Notice how one is “just asking” for a hypothetical risk while the other is an everyday fact of life.
The relationship between availability of guns and the amount of gun violence is extremely well-established. I personally am sympathetic to the view that an armed population is a meaningful deterrent against tyranny, but it’s hard to compare a hypothetical to a growing number of deaths. And the odd fact that firearms’ primary political role in our society is to intimidate people while voting doesn’t help either.
Its also hard to prove which causes which. In some capacity, violence itself necessitates guns. Both statements could also be true at the same time. or playing the devils advocate, the increase in violence causes higher gun ownership, but once the ownership is there, reducing violence might not reduce gun violence itself.