I can't agree with this. There are other ways of protecting yourself rather than just reaching for the nearest weapon. The civilised way is to band together and use mass numbers to defeat the bad guys. A working civil law system with "enforcers" (police), in fact. I think the continuing American usage of and reliance on guns is merely a sign of an immature culture. The British system is not perfect, nor indeed is any democratic country that abhors personal force (Norway for example) but it is still far superior to a culture of force and violence.

An old article but I don't think things have changed much. Police and courts are fine and certainly have their place but they are after the fact. I am of the opinion that you should be able to legally defend yourself by whatever means reasonable prior to and during an attack. The result of not being able to defend yourself emboldens criminals and has a negative effect on society.

Government Issues
June 7, 2004

BRITONS RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE PRACTICALLY ELIMINATED
The withdrawal of Englishmen's right to self-defense is having dire consequences in Great Britain: higher crime rate, weak sentences for assailants, and even the victims end up thrown in jail, says historian Joyce Lee Malcolm.

This did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years, she says. Those include the strictest gun laws of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. The impacts have been stark:

One is six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City.
More than half of English burglaries occur when someone is at home, while the frequency of such "hot burglaries" is only 13 percent in America.
Since handguns were banned in 1998, handgun crime has more than doubled.
Offenders under the age of 21 are almost never sent to prison; criminals that end up in prison are routinely released after serving half the sentence..
Overall, with the exception of murder, violent crime in England and Wales is far higher than in the United States. The British police are now, for the first time in their history, routinely armed, and have even sought the advice of American policemen to deal with gun crime

Victims of crime risk imprisonment for defending oneself. Fending off robbers in one's home with toy pistols will get one charged by the police; killing an assailant results in a life sentence, while if one manages to knock an attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault, says Malcolm.

Source: Joyce Lee Malcolm, "Self-Defense: An Endangered Right," Cato Institute, Policy Report No. 2, March 2004.

For text http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-index.html

For more on Government Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=33

A slanted article written by a right wing American organization.

Pistol regulations were in place since the beginning of the century and historically very few people carried them, not even the police; the 1998 ban is just a red herring.

Brits and Canadians are not out there begging to be armed and the great majority want it that way.

"Brits and Canadians are not out there begging to be armed and the great majority want it that way."

And you are welcome to keep it that way.
"From my cold, dead hands", for us and it better stay that way!

Immature? Ha-Ha, now thats funny right there!

I realy feel sorry for any country, US included, that puts the power in the hands of the criminals. Regardless of your good intentions, there are always that percentage of people who do violence for their own gains. Protecting yourself and your family should be foremost. 911 here in the US, and its counterparts in other countries, are just a call for the cleanup crew. Home defence should be paramount, concealed carry not quite so important.

Just before the riots in LA in '92 you could cut the street tension with a knife. Black folks were selling all of the businesses to Koreans in South Central. We had a bad economy in LA. The powder keg was when a young black girl was shot in the back by an elderly Korean shopkeeper. The county moved the trial to Santa Monica, where a white judge gave the woman (who was in her 80's) probation. That got the mood really going. We put the bullet proof vests under our seats on the fire trucks again, just in case. Gang violence was way up.
Then comes the Rodney King verdicts. Police Chief Gates wanted the city to be ready, but was reigned in by then Mayor Bradley.
Everyone remembers watching TV when a few thugs pulled Reginald Denny out of his truck and beat him senseless, starting the melee.
After the smoke cleared it was also determined that a number of business owners prbably torched their own buildings for the insurance money. It was also very clear that once it started, thousands of looters jumped on the bandwagon and took everything they could.
I suppose riots don't always have clear cut reasons to the onlookers.
The crazy thing was that a week after the riots the tension on the streets diminished and things turned calm. For a while...

In the US is it normal for insurers to pay out in the event of serious civil disturbance? In Britain insurers often have get-out clauses that mean they don't have to pay in those circumstances.

I t depends on the insurance company policy and also many business owners weren't aware of that clause:)

Riot and malicious damage isn't always a typical coverage - you need to buy a special rider.

The crazy thing was that a week after the riots the tension on the streets diminished and things turned calm. For a while... [/quote]

For several weeks after the riots we had martial law in the affected areas. I passed APC's on Sunset Boulevard.
But yes, we all learned a lesson or two about the horror of blowing up. And the city of LA learned a lesson or two about the LAPD "culture". Big changes followed those riots.