Guns and colonialism

Did I mention that we saw Wallace and Gromit? It was good, really good. It's great to see a cartoon being made without computer generated models zapping about everywhere. It has real character. The next movie to watch for is Harry Potter which comes out on Nov 18. Looking forward to that also.

I've been thinking about guns. We're not allowed any guns in Britain except shotguns. And you need a licence to keep those. You can have air powered guns, but there is a power limit. I think you may still also be able to keep rifles for sporting use, but again, you need a licence. I'm not a gun fan. I wouldn't want to carry one myself and I'm no gun sportsman, so the law doesn't affect me at all, but all the same, I can't help thinking that the guns now in Briatain are all in the hands of criminals.

I've seen reports that muggings in London are now more frequent than in New York. Is that because muggers are more scared to attack a New Yorker in case they pull out a weapon? If people on the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center were carrying guns, would the outcome have been different? And when legislation is passed banning gun ownership, would it stop criminal people from carrying guns? I can't see how it would, since criminal people are already law breakers by definition.

These thoughts are leaping around my head largely because the Brazillian people have just voted against a national ban on gun ownership, despite having one of the worse gun crime records in the world.

And another thought; I mentioned a while back that I was reading a book called "Re-reading Harry Potter". The author draws a parallel with Kipling. He says that Kipling places two races of people together in a single environment. One is superior (more powerful). He means the British in India at the end of the 19th century. The author claims that Kipling's justification for the British in India is bascially a racist stance, and I think he's probably right. In Harry Potter two races are also thrown together, the wizards and the muggles. The author claims that the stance is again effectively racist (unless I have read it wrong) because the muggle comunity are only free because the more powerful wizarding commnity choose to let them be.

I can't see how the two are comparable. In Kipling's work, he justifies the invasion and ocupation by the white man by claiming that they are helping the helpless Indians. In Rowling's work the more powerful magical community atempts to leave the muggles alone as far as possible. Have I missed something?