Even parts of the US can descend into being without rule of law.
a computer or a car to live.
What if the government was a lot more active in deciding who got to use a computer and a car? What if that government was dominated by a party that you didn't like, whose members largely didn't like you? So for example, if you're a never-Trumper, would you like it if someone you considered a "Trump lackey" had the power to take away your computer and your car?
Back in the days of Hammurabi, there was no such thing as "Freedom of the Press" but it's now taken as something vital to society. If you don't have access to computers and computer networks in 2018, then a person is at such a disadvantage, that it's politically significant at a fundamental level. This was the same logic that was applied to firearms in the late 18th century. (And even today, there are those who depend on firearms proficiency to eat.)
So fix that instead of introducing even more unstable elements by allowing ‘everyone’ to own guns? I mean, even in West European cities there are less nice neighborhoods and yet the people there manage without guns
> What if the government was a lot more active in deciding who got to use a computer and a car?
That would depend on the reasons. Imagine a world where cybercrime got so bad power plants went down every few days, hospitals are constantly brought down by ransomware, banks have terrible downtime because of all the malware infections.. I’d be okay with it if the government severely restricted computer usage or imposed stringent limits on the computers themselves in such a case. Similar case for cars, once automated cars are a fixed problem I have no qualms with the government severely restricting car ownership or having strict regulations in terms of human driving, if it means safer roads.
Also, yes, computers are very essential to modern living. Owning a computer is not per sé. Very destitute people often make do with library computers and Internet cafes. I don’t say that’s a good thing, I’m merely pointing out that the ownership of a computer is not an inalienable human right, much like guns.
The solution to this kind of problem is to harden and isolate critical infrastructure, not impose a bunch of restrictions that mostly impact non-criminals in the hope that criminals will actually obey them.
Doesn't seem to be working for london:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/london-murder-rate-higher-new-y...
Fact: In 2017, the murder rate in London was 1.2 per 100,000 people, and in New York it was 3.4[1]
Fact: For two months in 2018 (February and March) the murder rate in London overtook New York[2]
Fact: The city with the lowest murder rate in the US (San Diego) had a murder rate of 2.2 per 100,000 in 2017.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43628494
[2] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5963434/london-murder-rate-201...
[3] http://time.com/5266759/donald-trump-london-knife-crime-murd...
Laws and morality are nest not conflated. But the former is meant to be an approximation and safeguard to the latter.
As you can see owning a gun does not fit that description. Otherwise, is owning a car a human right as well? A computer?
Self defense, self determination, and access to knowledge count as human rights to me. I wouldn't necessarily think that the government should be handing out guns and computers. But if the government starts telling people they can't have the tools for self defense, self determination, and access to knowledge, then I get suspicious.