The Right to Bear Arms - For When Armed Bears Attack?

Taken from Wikepedia:

"A government is "the organization, that is the governing authority of a political unit,"^[1] "the ruling power in a political society,"^[2] and the apparatus through which a governing body functions and exercises authority.^[3] "Government, with the authority to make laws, to adjudicate disputes, and to issue administrative decisions, and with a monopoly of authorized force where it fails to persuade, is an indispensable means, proximately, to the peace of communal life."^[4] "A compulsory territorial monopolist of protection and jurisdiction equipped with the power to tax without unanimous consent."<sup>[5]"

Interesting. Most notable, however, is the passage where a government is said to have a "monopoly of authorized force where it fails to persuade". Meaning, in effect, that the government has a monopoly on violence. Or, at least should have.

Now, I wonder, what would happen, if an organisation with a monopoly on violence would allow people outside of that organisation to bear (fire)arms? Why, you get the United States of America, with it's exemplary crime rates, especially when compared to Western Europe.

Of course, not everyone would agree with that definition of a government, so that'd explain why -
what? Being higher on those statistics is not a good thing? Then why are so many Americans so damn proud of their right to bear arms?</sup>