Should London Riot Victims Have the Right to Bear Arms?

by Mike on August 10, 2011

in UK Politics

The Daily Telegraph’s Nile Gardiner raises an interesting question: do the London riots demonstrate a need for the right to bear arms?  Unlike the United States where the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, the United Kingdom has such a phobia of firearms that most police officers don’t even carry them.  One thing the riots have shown us is that:

The defence of life and property can never be entrusted solely to the state, not least when there is a complete breakdown in law and order. As we have seen this week in Britain, when individuals are barred from defending their own property from mobs of vicious thugs, sheer anarchy and terror reins.

Why should law abiding citizens be denied the right to protect themselves when criminals do have access to firearms and the police are incapable of protecting the public?  Surely, we aren’t that concerned with protecting the ability of thugs to vandalize, loot, and assault without fear of meeting resistance.  Or are the rights of law abiding citizens to peacefully live their own lives and provide for themselves and their families just not that important?  Too bad the law abiding citizens of Britain had to choose “retreat” over “reload” this week.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: