Replies

In other words, the increase in violent crime in the UK is not based on the imposition of draconian gun control, but on the fact that we have stupidly imported a slew of very violent people into the country and inculcated a selfish immoral society that no longer sees the sanctity of Human life as a block to individual gain.

I can't disagree with you. Your point is concise and perceptive. It is, however My belief that all the above being true, it is even MORE imperative that lawful citizens be given the right and the means to defend themselves. I think the difference between our perceptions is the difference between the way Americans and the British view human rights.In Britain, the prevailing view is that rights are given to the citizen by the government. In America, We believe that our rights are inherent to ourselves as human beings, and are conferred upon ourselves by God. We, in turn "loan" these rights to the government as a form of trust. Thus, it is implicit that if We as Americans feel the government has violated that trust We can take action to make sure that that violation is rectified. This is where the 2nd amendment comes in. The constitutional framers well knew (by experience)of the possibility that government would become unresponsive to peoples inalienable rights up to and including tyranny. Thus the 2nd amendment is our recognition that we have a right to defend ourselves against an individuals, (or a government's)attempt to restrict our rights. But, with rights come responsibilities. And that's where I am thinking the problem lies with gun ownership. both of our selfish cultures are fond of claiming rights, but not so fond of dealing with the responsibilities that come with those rights.

I can't disagree with you. Your point is concise and perceptive. Thank you. I appreciate your assessment. It is, however My belief that all the above being true, it is even MORE imperative that lawful citizens be given the right and the means to defend themselves. I don't disagree with the right to defend themselves, but I worry increasing the means might increase the problem. I know people say "the criminal will think twice if he knows you are armed". Thats logical. However, you could argue if he knows you are armed he's more likely to simply shoot you before you can stop him. Of course, this depends hows dim/desperate/deranged the criminal is. If he is mentally disturbed, no amount of firepower is going to deter him, IMO. I think the difference between our perceptions is the difference between the way Americans and the British view human rights.In Britain, the prevailing view is that rights are given to the citizen by the government. In America, We believe that our rights are inherent to ourselves as human beings, and are conferred upon ourselves by God. This statement really had me thinking over the last few hours! Very perceptively put! I think you are right, although I would say the prevailing British view is not that the government gives us rights, but that our rights are those that we commonly hold - we elect governments that codify them. But I do agree with your assessment. I certainly think that a civilised society should accord its citizens certain rights and I dont doubt we would mostly be in agreement as to what they should be, but as a Brit I certainly dont believe that rights are either inherent or inalienable. But, with rights come responsibilities. And that's where I am thinking the problem lies with gun ownership. both of our selfish cultures are fond of claiming rights, but not so fond of dealing with the responsibilities that come with those rights. I agree absolutely. A major problem with modern democracies is that our representatives no longer listen to us - they listen to quangos, and pressure groups, and lobbyists who SAY they represent people, but in fact are pushing their own agendas. Government of the people, by the people, for the people sounds very good - but what happens if the people abdicate that responsibility to BE government? To my mind this is the root of our modern malaises.