I disagree with your take on rights. There’s no freedom or entitlement in NZ to own guns and I’m definitely conflating rights with privileges because gun ownership in New Zealand is considered a granted privilege.

I’m not trying to redefine rights, the standard definition: “Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory”

In NZ, there no freedom to own guns, no legal rights, no social rights, ethical principles or entitlement to either own or bear arms. it’s a granted privilege that can be revoked at any time for any reason.

When we look at applying the same reasoning to ownership of people (as per your example) it’s crossing over into inalienable or fundamental human rights inherent to all humans which I don’t see gun ownership or bearing arms as being part of. (You may disagree with me here?)

After that, Just to really mess stuff up, you’ve got other people's rights not to be exposed to a society that normalizes carrying weapons? It’s why we use laws to define those boundaries?