Those people are subjects. They are not free. We have a problem with gun violence? Millions upon millions of guns in America didn't harm a single person today. 99.999% of the guns don't.

How can you say those places are not authoritarian when they prevent people from owning the means of defense? The UK even has anti-knife laws. The police, royals, and military can own weapons though.

You though? Nope. You're not allowed. That is authoritarian. I'm not saying all disarmed countries are destroyed by their governments, but that has happened. Laos? China? Soviet Union?

History has countless examples of how people, who are disarmed, are then slaughtered. What about that evidence? Is it not reasonable to consider those examples from history?

What is logical is that free people are armed, and they maintain the ability to resist, with violence if necessary, to protect themselves. That prevents slaughters that have happened in places like Russia, China, Africa, etc. etc. etc.

Ask an American Indian about disarming and trusting the government.