Consider: the UK gun laws have nothing to do with personal safety. They were designed to prevent the populace from retaliating against the monarchy. They were not designed with your well being in mind at all. Sure, there are a lot of "Liberty!" chanting fools out there (and I agree with your assessment of those particular fools who stretch it to far limits, thinking that a lack of government is good.) But, your laws are specifically designed to keep you from complaining too much, and to keep you and your fellow citizens in line.
the law was conjured for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean they're invalid laws to keep. Right things can happen for the wrong reasons. As for keeping me and my fellow citizens in line and from complaining too much - that's far from the actual case. The government is very much under constant scrutiny, even with party supporters, the media loves government corruption stories because people don't like the government doing things they shouldn't be doing and people do stand up against the government with the power of democracy and it does work. The Labour government showed little regard for civil liberties in their bills, and they've found it difficult to pass such bills without amendments - I can probably talk all day about the 'Religious Hatred Bill' that was conjured to basically stop people from saying anything bad about Islam, which wasn't passed until Freedom of Expression was account for...basically making a law that says we can say what the hell we like about any religion just as long as we don't incite violence towards those who practice it - that amendment had occured because people bitched and moaned. This kind of thing is fairly common when the government is found to be doing something stupid. We don't need guns to keep our government in line - exercising democracy will do more to influence government than going in guns blazing or starting a civil war (even if the monarchy lost power because of a civil war). I don't see how I could use a gun to keep my government in line. I am sure it's a similar case in the US - even if the likes of Fox make up bullshit for scrutiny.
One could always reasonably ask why you in the UK, as a citizen in good standing, should not be able to defend yourself against a knife attacker with a gun. Why not? He would be out to kill you, after all. It's not like you live in Japan, where it is safe and you don't need a weapon. It is a fair argument for me to pose, saying that your government has decreed that it is far better for you to die from criminal attack, than for you to own a weapon to use.
Because I don't want to see guns on my street? Because I'm worried that guns would cause more murders in my society than without? Because I'd have more of a chance defending myself against a knife attacker than one wielding a gun, which it seems is more likely to happen in a country where they're legal and more widely available. Personally, I already know how to defend against a knife but I wouldn't use it if I was able to run away, after all, mistakes can happen. At least I'm not trying to defend against a bullet. In the situation I wouldn't think, "I could do with a gun" - I mean, what are the chances of me drawing a gun quick enough for him to not deal the damage to get me out of the situation? If he's quick, and people wielding knives are often quick and unpredictable, the time I'm reaching for my gun may be enough time for him to jam the knife into a vital organ where I might have been able to block it. As far as I can see, in said situation, I don't think a gun would be all that beneficial, unless I can anticipate his knife attack enough in advance or I'm at a far enough distance away, which is unlikely - if I'm at that kind of distance, if I'm not trapped, I can run away, only an idiot takes on their attacker when they can get away.
Now, as I said before, homicide and gun use are such a small thing, really. The stats show it. The real tasks that both our countries should be focused on are stemming suicide and automobile deaths and accidents. Those issues are far more pressing.
This is fair and that might be worthy of a different discussion. As my town suffers quite badly for automobile deaths and accidents, there's plenty of rants on my part.
My username means 'suicide', so maybe I'm a part of the cause?
The other guy was pulling a gun in my example, not me. And sorry, but if someone decides that they're going to hurt me, they deserve whatever the f**k happens to them. If that's death, so be it. You want to stay alive, you should try not assaulting people.
And you were beating him up, he pulls the gun, no doubt if you had a gun too, you'd pull yours out too (you don't want to get yourself killed). Situation escalates because somebody responded to an act of assault with a gun. The situation goes from an ass-kicking to two people trying their best to not get shot. As for assault, I completely disagree that a person deserves to die for assaulting somebody. How is one deserving of the other? Yes, if you're assaulted there's a good chance you don't deserve it, there are other ways of stopping him from getting away with it without killing the fucker.
You have a cable on your keyboard? The 90s were over ten years ago.
It's my secret life, I work as an IT guy who goes around people's homes to 'fix' their computers, just be wary if I decide to use my own keyboard, the media calls me "The IT Strangler", hardly original or flashy, but then I think the media has lost their touch. I was hoping for something witty and clever.
This is exactly my point.
And it's one I've been trying to emphasise. Whilst banning guns in the US would be low on the list, I maintain the argument that in the UK legalising them is too.