Ironside,
So you believe in a right to self-defense, but only a very limited one that guarantees you'll be weaker than an agressor who choses not to respect human rights? Is that really a right to self-defense?
Well as we in Sweden has successfully avoided to get guns common in society, so the average crook don't have a gun, so it would be stupid to introduce guns for the average citizen as it would most likely give the average criminal a gun too.

So you stay at the same level as the aggressor, but both are using a weaker weapon, thus reducing the amount of killing. Going any further, as in reducing the amount of weaker weapons (like knifes) used is ineffective as it's used regularly, while the only purpose for guns is either protecting yourself, use it for robbery, hunting and practice shooting (for fun or training). Only allowing it for the two last points (with license) gives the least amont of guns.

The very heavy criminals do get hold of guns, but they seem to be using assult weapons and robbing money trucks, or killing other criminals, and shootouts with civilians involved havn't happen here for a while (as long as I can remember that is), so getting a regular gun for that would be stupid, as it would probably only endanger yourself in that case.

For America, first you find out exactly why the Americans on average are much more trigger happy then the population of Switzerland and adapt on thereafter.

To be on topic:
IMO there exist no absolute haman rights, but there exist some rights that it's easiest to build a society on and those rights are good to follow and to apply to all of humanity. So while it might not be absolute, there's some laws that it's best for humanity to follow.