You know what’s funny? When I was in Iraq I was REQUIRED to be armed at all times... as were the other military members.
And you know what, they were more civil than a lot of people who weren’t in a war-zone (ie here).
Therefore, the premise is fatally flawed.
This is all about some NGO-driven crap that the British and Japanese instigated as a way to try to get the U.N. to peel away the Second Amendment by treaty.
Mostly NGO people have been driving this since the late 80's. The NRA was involved early, but the termites told them where to get off the bus after a couple of years.
The line of attack is, U.N. aid workers in Africa were threatened, and lots of people were killed, by private and insurgent armies carrying light weapons. Therefore, light weapons are bad? Light weapons are bad for you, ngkay? Don't have light weapons, they're bad....
The basic argument is moronic, but the form is to try to tie dead African villagers and threatened U.N. aid operations to the U.S. retention of its Second Amendment, and to use a combination of "legitimacy" and "bandwagon" ploys to get us to "come off of that old cowboy stuff" and start acting like "civilized" countries. Civilized, like, say, Great Britain and Japan, on the subject of firearms.