I am not American, nor do I live there, so I am very circumspect in what I say about that fine country.
What goes on behind another person’s borders is, after all, none of my business. However, I hope I might pose a question in the interests of academic enquiry, a question of reason and logic. I hope this won’t be perceived as sticking my end in where it’s not welcome. This is not a judgment, after all, it’s a yearning to understand.
The question goes out to all the advocates of gun ownership, and it goes like this. It is a cornerstone of gun advocacy that we need guns for self-protection. If this is the case, can you explain why we in Japan or Britain, where there are no guns, don’t get shot all the time?
Think about it. Take your time. I’m not going anywhere.
And while I’m on the subject, we hear much of the right of citizens to own guns. Can you clarify: do citizens have a right not to get shot? I ask because we don’t hear very much about that. Which carries greater legal and moral weight, the right to carry guns or the right not to get shot?
As I say, these are questions of logic, an honest enquiry into how things work, not an assault on or criticism of America.
In other words, please don’t shoot the questioner.