Well, I'm late getting to this discussion, but let me offer up a few points for thought.
The use of deadly force in defense of one's life, the lives of one's family, and of one's property, has been seen by most, since before the dawn of civilization, as an inalienable right of the individual. The type of weapon used to carry out that defense was of no consequence as far as the ruling governments were concerned. The criminal class was rightly seen as being composed of predatory scum with no redeeming social qualities and was treated as such.
Being unwilling to spend vast amounts of money to incarcerate murderous thugs, these countries simply did away with them. While such a policy might do little to control a psychopath, it sent a chilling message to the punks and "gang-bangers": If caught, you're dead.
As a consequence, most countries possessing local and central governments composed of men with a pragmatic approach to law enforcement and a hard-nosed resolve have been largely able to control their streets and their criminal class. Such a government made no attempt to disarm the law-abiding who, knowing that their government had their backs, fought back with a vengeance.
If our streets are now unsafe it is because that type of government, at least at the national level, no longer exists in the United States.
Law enforcement policy no longer condones individual resistance, it condemns it. That policy is controlled by elements within our society that believe that its' criminal elements should be "rehabilitated," and if they cannot be rehabilited, murderers and psychopaths should be incarcerated in perpetuity.
As a result, the criminal no longer has to fear for his life, except under the following circumstances: running afoul of other criminals; running afoul of an armed citizen. In the second instance, the very governments charged with maintaining the security of our streets are, in effect, aiding that criminal class in taking control of our streets.
The righteous citizen who uses deadly force in defense of life, family, and property is no longer seen as being part of the solution to controlling the violent criminal. That citizen is seen, by certain elements within our government, as being no better than the criminals themselves.
There's the rub. Those elements that control the government have used its authority, and the power of the media, to bring about a sea-change in the way the government perceives its' own citizens....and in how those citizens perceive themselves and their neighbors. Now, as a result, many in our society no long trust their fellow citizens to correctly assess a threat and react responsibly.
Instead of executing violent criminals, that government incarcerates them, and tries to rehabilitate them. A life-sentence carries no fear for them for the imposition of such a sentence by the courts is a mere formality, and they may well be back on the streets in a few years, filled with rage and hardened by physical labor and an idiotic system that allows them to have boxing equipment and barbells to work out with.
That rage and that body stands a very good chance of being turned loose on society, and a population that no long believes that it can use deadly force to resist and believes that it is unjustified in doing so. Indeed that population believes that the use of deadly force places them "on the criminals' level."
And THAT is why the elderly and the weak and the very young and the lone individual can no longer walk the streets safely. Street gangs and a rampant drug-culture are merely symptoms of this larger problem.
