—The Justification of Gun Rights—
The right of the people to possess and use firearms, guns, to defend themselves, is required for them to defend themselves without the assistance of the State.

There can be cases where it would be unethical to grant a specific individual ownership of a firearm, but the existence of such cases does not create a general rule against gun rights.
In a scenario where someone has clearly demonstrated that there isn't anything significant that would make them an unusual risk to own a firearm, the right of them to not be stopped from obtaining one is consistent with Yoggism.

It should also be noted that, whereas the sale of some addictive drugs which may present risks to society, such sale can be construed as unethical as being exploitative, such as the fact that many nations where tobacco is legal have that same drug marketed through cigarettes, to children; the sale of guns to people to defend themselves and their local communities is not inherently exploitative.
 

—Collectivism of Social Safety—
The argument that any rights should be curtailed for public safety, even if an individual doing something may not create an intrinsic risk, but rather a collective being granted a right causes a collective risk, is a fallacy.
The problem is that collectives are an abstract concept, not a definite entity. To ban skydiving, or driving, due to their risks to society as a whole, doesn't make sense. Individuals who drive safely or skydive in a way where they are informed, are not a risk to society.

The only risk to society is in the individuals who do not do that, making specifically them the ones at fault. To frustrate the interests of the many as defense against the actions of the negligent few is not justifiable and is mere collectivist "consequential" calculus, no different than to kill innocents to maintain a vague notion of social order.
 

—Banning of Arms justifies the Unjustifiable—
The State, or Nation-State, is a governmental entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory. This definition is a misnomer though, as more accurately it is an entity with a monopoly on the legitimized use of force, where such force is legitimized through the application of force itself.

This collectivist calculus used to justify killing innocents to maintain order, or forcing others to behave differently for some social good applying to a group-entity that has no physical presence, is the very thing that justifies the State.
Under Yoggism, actions that intrinsically frustrate or subordinate someone and their interests, are unjustifiable unless done in defense against another who was doing so first. Any claim of a specific council or class of people to be the sole monopoly on resolving conflicts or the use of force, violates this rule wholeheartedly, by claiming one group the "legitimate subordinator" over others interests.

True self-defense rights require the right to defend yourself and others free of the interference of such a system.
To ban the use of firearms at all, explicitly does the same thing as a patent in legitimizing monopoly over the use of force to resolve conflicts.
Banning of arms upholds the monopoly on violence of the state, which is unjustifiable.
 

—Licensing and "Escalation Ethics"—
A blanket ban on a specific type of firearm may well be unjustifiable as to grant a specific class of people the right to use such firearm for their purposes, while not allowing the general public to do so; but what is not unjustifiable is the requiring of licensing and review to use specific methods of defensive force.

If someone were to attack you with a pistol, and all you have is a knife, to be forcibly denied from being able to escalate your use of force to match theirs, is unjustifiable, as it is a rejection of your right to self-defense and thus a rejection of your rights at all, for rights are meaningless if you cannot defend them.

To be granted the right to defend oneself in such a scenario is thus the right, in that situation, to access a pistol. This much is relatively clear.

The problem starts when you realize that banning any specific type of firearm creates a similar problem, especially if the state has access to that firearm. It creates this same escalatory problem but now against the state itself.
To sell a rocket launcher to a known sociopath with mental instability is not ethical at all, but to sell a rocket launcher to a sound-of-mind person in an area regularly attacked by terrorists carrying similar weaponry, whose outposts are especially vulnerable to such a method of offense, is entirely justifiable.

It is also justifiable to sell a rocket launcher to someone with extensive safety training and licensing, who plans to use it recreationally on their own property.

To argue otherwise is to again place collective risk over the facts of the manner, over whether an individual is actually a threat to anyone. This much is an intrinsic frustration of their interests without a justification.
 

—Decentralization—
The act of legitimizing a private right to self-defense through firearms or similar force, is a decentralization of the legitimate use of force. In contrast, centralization of any system or production implies the frustration of any interest in dissent from the central policies implied.

To centralize something is to place some thing, be it a system of any kind, production, means of defense, means of government, means of distribution, under a single authority with significant power over those else within the system who are not directly part of such authority.

This significant power, represents the frustration of the interests of any dissenters.
The banning of arms thus implies a centralization of legitimate defense, in contrast the value of interests would necessitate a decentralization of such.
This reasoning can be used for the advocacy of a process of decentralization of all authority, of the State, of economic authorities that being corporations and state planning, and arguably of culture.
 

—Planning and the Interest-Praxeology of a Militia—
There is a distinction to be made between collective ownership, and state ownership. State ownership can imply centralized ownership of something in an authoritative entity that acts on its own accord. Collective ownership on the other hand can imply many things.

Interest Praxeology under Yoggism is in reference to theory of human action, centered around interests. Specifically the acknowledgement that the continuous frustration or subordination of interests leads to a lack of the representation of information on people's interests, in a given system.

This can lead to economic inefficiency and a lack of the fulfillment of people's needs and wants.
Central planning of an economy by means of a State can imply this very thing, though collective ownership of a specific enterprise by means of worker-owned cooperative enterprise can imply the exact opposite, and instead imply the proper representation of the workers interests.

This unveils the semantically problematic conflation of "collective ownership" with "state ownership", they need not mean the same thing, and collective ownership of anything need not imply anti-individualism or the subordination-driven collectivism discussed earlier.

It is this conflation that leads to the notion that Karl Marx was an individualist seeming especially bizarre, even if his quote "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." explicitly implies individual freedom as the condition for collective freedom, as "each" refers to the development of each individual on their own ends.

By these insights on "collective ownership" and the idea that representation of people's interests in systems can help ensure they work for the individuals they affect, a pragmatic argument can be made via interest praxeology; the conclusion that the banning of firearms and thus the forced centralization of defensive force and militarism in general, is inefficient and will not adequately defend people's interests, instead giving way to corruption.

This is especially true in military situations, as many modern militaries are extremely hierarchical, which can result in mismanagement, misconduct, abuse of power, and the proliferation of war crimes. In an event where the interests of members of some defensive force are in many cases fundamentally at odds with the public, such as in the police force, the unionization of police has the opposite problem, making it much harder to hold police accountable for their actions.

The unionization of the police force in many countries remains legal, while military unions do not, as that could threaten the ability to hierarchically instruct military regiments to commit acts they would rather not. Instead they are subordinated for "the good of the State", based again on the idea that it is an implied good of the society.