Or is it more complicated than "abstinence"?
(I'd argue that it is. There is no biological drive to own a gun, just a socially constructed one. It's a different category of activity.)
Put differently, "natural predisposition to protecting self and family => self defense OK" is not the same proposition as "natural predisposition to protecting self and family => guns OK". There's an extra step in the latter, "self defense OK => guns OK" (which I was not making an explicit evaluation on). The analogy in the GP is a false equivalence.
I'm not going to argue that a gun is the only or even necessarily an appreciable way to advance this in most individuals, but for many people it likely does work into this biological need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#...
In some societies, such as the US, the biological need for security is met by the socially acceptable practice of gun ownership.
In other societies, it is not socially acceptable to meet that biological need with the practice of gun ownership.
This was accepted and understood at the time the Constitution was penned.
Also, it's not like governments use those weapons responsibly, even though they have the "right" to own them...