But, they could not disarm the people if the people had the right to self defense, because from that flows the obvious right to arms suitable for self defense.
So, they came up with the theory that the citizen had no reason to defend themselves, because that was the purpose of the state.
At the time, it may even have seemed reasonable. England had an extremely low rate of homicide, about .71 per hundred thousand. Joyce Lee Malcomb documents this gradual English policy of disarmament and elimination of the right to self defense in her book on Guns and Violence: The English Experience, mentioned in the article.
We have learned that homicide is mostly a cultural phenomena, and the culture in England has changed quite a bit in the last few decades, much of it due to immigration.
Pingferlater.
It follows, that this is a ligitimate profession. There is no reason for entrepreneurs and other ambitious, creative people not to engage in this profession.
Anybody with a functioning brain will expect this profession to grow.
Actually, it's not much different from the legal profession in the U.S., and it's about as respectable.
If the British people don't like it, they can always elect different politicians; however, there is no reason to suspect that they don't like it. Apparently they do. So it's only a problem for non-Brits who visit the U.K., but they can avoid doing this.
What's the problem?
Someone ought to send the scotsman’s reply to Scott at Powerline so professor Malcolm can respond to it. I would like to see what she has to say.