False Dichotomy
. . . perturbed that we're so willing to give up the right to vote . . .
The question is a false dichotomy.
Would you rather starve or eat your children?
Would you rather live under communism or under fascism?
Would you rather beat your wife or kick your dog?
Why would you chose either option in any of those questions?
What would make you think that the only valid choices would ever be losing the right to vote or losing the right to bear arms?
The question itself is flawed.
It proposes that those two choices are all you get.
Now, imagine that someone actually forced that decision on you. We have already seen that the "right to vote" can be co-opted to the point where your vote really does not affect the outcome.
If you have to choose between irrelevant "voting" and retaining the means to re-assert your relevance, then that's a different kind of choice, isn't it?
Rather different from choosing between, say, "losing the right to vote yourself rainbows and unicorns versus losing the right to murder people."
Understand that the question, as asked, isn't the question
as answered. The choices expressed in the answers are a product of the respondent's world view and the filters through which the questions are "heard."
All of that said, it really is a bad question, and the resulting graph is pretty meaningless, absent the thought context of the respondents.