Replies

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.

but what happens if the people abdicate that responsibility to BE government? To my mind this is the root of our modern malaises.

To paraphrase a canadian rock band "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" Too many people in both our countries have abdicated their rights. It's too time consuming, or too messy or boring, etc. But someday I fear a lot of people will wake up to find out they are enslaved, and their choices and decisions about their lives won't matter anymore. Or, in the words of Thomas Paine "those who would trade their liberty for safety or security deserve neither". I hope it's not too late.