There is no question that throughout history, authorities have sought to have a monopoly of force. They seek to create a citizenry totally dependent on authority for social control (and unable to do anything beyond accepting controls implemented by authority).
Essentially, authority fears an armed citizenry, either because “lone wolves” or criminals can attack individual security officials or because armed citizens can foment rebellion or counter (and possibly prevent) government repression. And when citizens have had military training and combat experience, government concern rises proportionally.
In these societies, individual gun ownership is intensely controlled. To legally obtain a pistol, for example, one might be required to pass a security legal review; pay substantial fees, regularly renewed; take courses in gun safety that need to be frequently repeated; leave the weapon at a police station or secure it in a strongbox/safe that is locked.
Personal safety is not considered a sufficient explanation for obtaining a weapon. Indeed, the hoops and hurdles for obtaining a weapon are so protracted and detailed that one might conclude only a fanatic would endure them—exactly the type of person that security officials would want to prevent obtaining a weapon of individual destruction.
The attitude in the United States is existentially different. Historically, many believe that armed “Minutemen” defeated the British Army to win the Revolutionary War against Great Britain. Securing and maintaining American liberty was based on the armed citizen. Consequently, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution not only authorizes a “militia” but, as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court, guarantees the right of individuals to possess firearms.
