Always Broken has it about right.
It's about appropriate levels of force. It's about remaining within the bounds of what is reasonable, legal and morally right.
I'm not against the possession of firearms, but I do think that on balance handguns are unwise (I support fishermen, etc. carrying knives, but not switchblades/flicknives, on the same basis).
Over here, Tony Martin (a hero to the unthinking, knee-jerk far right - I count myself as a thinking, considered soft right sort of bloke) was jailed for shooting and killing a burglar.
That burglar wasn't armed, or violent, nor was he intent on raping Mr Martin or his family. He was a teenage boy who Martin shot in the back from close range as that boy tried to flee for his life. He presented no threat whatsoever to Mr Martin, and had even ceased to present a threat to the farmer's property. That's murder in my book, and while the victim deserved to be locked up, he had done nothing to warrant the death penalty. As in all murder cases, the perpetrator can only be released on licence if he admits his or her guilt. Martin is not being singled out.
Over here, burglars are seldom armed, and it may well be a different matter over there. There may sometimes be a case for acting in self defence over there, but the rhetoric being used here, and the underlying attitudes are uncomfortably gung ho and lawless. Moreover, I do not see that a handgun is necessary for self defence.
Does anyone have the statistics for the number of armed criminals killed by homeowners? And unarmed criminals? And the number of collateral deaths - spouses killed in an argument because there was a gun in the house, accidental shootings etc?
If you don't trust your Government, then vote for one you do trust. If you don't trust your law enforcement bodies, then reform them, but don't expect civilised people to applaud you if your only solution is to take the law into your own hands.