Surely it's obvious?
-----
To pre-empt further dancing around on this:
It's a reasonable question. It isn't simply Joe harassing you with unreasonable offensive personal questions.
You've claimed, more than once, that banning guns will result in violence. You've also said, speaking of yourself, that you yourself own gun/s, and are unwilling to hand them over. So that, even if expressed lightheartedly, you're clearly representative, at least to some small degree (and for all we know more than merely to some small degree), of these people who you claim won't willingly hand over their guns, should the law be changed to require that of them.
Therefore, given that you've volunteered this personal information about yourself, it is fair to explore, by examining what you might do, whether gun nuts would really oppose some regulation that might take away your guns with violence, or if it is simply bluster.
Obviously you're free not to answer. Goes without saying. But you mustn't make out that the question itself was unreasonable, as you're trying to do here. If anything, given how the discussion has progressed, it would be your refusal to furnish a straightforward answer that would be less than reasonable --- even though, again, you're well within your rights to do that, obviously.
(And of course, if despite appearances you insist that that was only a joke, your refusal to hand over your guns even should the law require it, than I'm happy to accept that to be the case, why not. But doing that still entails answering that question, if only implicitly --- so why not just do it directly, instead of dancing endlessly around it?)
