Wikileaks - friendly fire

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:47 am

Wikileaks: Pentagon logs show how British troops repeatedly came under 'friendly fire'
British soldiers repeatedly came under attack from US forces in a series of 'friendly fire' incidents, according to Pentagon logs on the Iraq War leaked to the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks.

By Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter
Published: 10:10AM BST 23 Oct 2010

The Wikileaks' files reveal that British forces were attacked in error on at least 11 occasions.
In one incident, a commando with the Royal Marines was shot and wounded while, on another occasion at night, US troops, who had no night vision goggles and were listening to their iPods, began firing on a British patrol.
On October 29 2004, a commando with the Royal Marines was 'engaged by friendly fire' after being shot at mistakenly by US Military Police, whose own vehicle had broken down in the middle of the road.
The log states: "US individuals fired rounds on the front [Land Rover] Discovery."
It states that the commando sustained injuries but does not detail what those were nor how seriously injured he was.
In another incident on 27 February 2004, three British vehicles driving close to the Kuwait border were threatened by a US soldier armed with a .50 calibre machine gun, who was in a vehicle ahead of them in a convoy.
The log suggests the American threatened to shoot the British who had tried to overtake the American patrol vehicle.
An intelligence report written by the British but passed to the Americans stated: "There was sufficient daylight for the US convoy to clearly see the British military number plates on the vehicles."
It went on: "The British convoy attempted to get close to and pass the US convoy a total of three times and was threatened in the same way each time."
Just five months later, on 20 July 2004, a US convoy actually opened fire on British vehicles trying to overtake in the same area.
British vehicles were also shot at by American convoy escorts again in November and December and by a Bulgarian convoy the same month.
Being shot at had become relatively routine so that by February 2005, according to a report, a three vehicle British convoy strafed by an American gunner did not even bother to stop.
Three months later in May 2005, two Kings Royal Hussars vehicles were fired on by an American convoy when a driver of one of the British vehicles had apparently caused alarm by swerving to avoid a piece of debris on the road.
In October 2006 a British patrol, which was emblazoned with blue light sticks to make it identifiable as friendly to other coalition units, was nevertheless shot at by US troops.
The log reveals the American soldiers were not equipped with night vision goggles and had been listening to their iPods.
The Pentagon logs also detail a series of deaths of American troops killed by their compatriots. At least seven American servicemen were killed and another 34 wounded in 18 suspected friendly fire incidents. Not all the incidents had been made public until now with the leak of the documents.
In one of the first incidents on 4 November 2005, 502nd Infantry Regiment came under small arms fire in Baghdad. Five men were injured and another, Staff Sergeant Joseph Fegler, 24, was killed.
Two hours after the engagement it emerged that the damage had been done by the rear gunner of another US convoy up ahead.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/8082525/Wikileaks-Pentagon-logs-show-how-British-troops-repeatedly-came-under-friendly-fire.html

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:13 am

When even trained professionals can't be trusted with a gun, it speaks volumes about the dangerous of allowing civilians to arm themselves.

by Guest Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:22 am

Civilians aren't normally in a theatre of armed conflict.

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:31 am

I'm being facetious - this is with regards to a discussion we were having about gun ownership.

by dblboggie Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:44 am

BecMacFeegle wrote:I'm being facetious - this is with regards to a discussion we were having about gun ownership.

That was, I suspect, already known... merk's point still holds true. This is apples and oranges, not apples and apples.

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:55 am

The reasoning that has been used here as justification for allowing people to have weapons in their own homes, is that they might need them if confronted with an armed intruder. I'd say that was a theatre of conflict - even if on a much smaller scale. If even trained soldiers can get it wrong in that situation, then untrained civilians certainly can. That was the point, however facetiously made.

by The_Amber_Spyglass Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:11 am

BecMacFeegle wrote:When even trained professionals can't be trusted with a gun, it speaks volumes about the dangerous of allowing civilians to arm themselves.

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I don't think the problem is so much the availability of weapons to the public, but the perception of the type of people that the US military *seems* to go out of its way to attract.

I work with the British tri-service military every day and I find them to be incredibly polite and friendly and the further up the ranks they go, the more courteous they become. Any interview with a soldier on live television seems to reinforce this image.

Yet I do not feel this way about American soldiers in general. Overall, I find them quite aggressive and upfront and the sheer volume of friendly fire incidents does not go anyway to alleviate my concerns that the US military attracts the wrong sort of people who sign up just to blow shit up. I feel it should do more to discourage this sort of behaviour. Discipline does not equal aggression. Overall, it seems to be a different kind of disciplinary approach from our different militaries.

No offence to dbl or Tex, because I know both of you served but I'm going by my personal experiences of the soldiers I have encountered, met, spoken to and work with every day.

by Guest Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:15 am

BecMacFeegle wrote:The reasoning that has been used here as justification for allowing people to have weapons in their own homes, is that they might need them if confronted with an armed intruder. I'd say that was a theatre of conflict - even if on a much smaller scale. If even trained soldiers can get it wrong in that situation, then untrained civilians certainly can. That was the point, however facetiously made.

a good point.

The Wikileaks' files reveal that British forces were attacked in error on at least 11 occasions.

I can remember reading the battles British coroners had in getting America to hand over information to show one way or the other if British boys and girls where killed in American friendly fire.. I'm not sure if the British courts did get the information they needed

by Guest Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:24 am

BecMacFeegle wrote:When even trained professionals can't be trusted with a gun, it speaks volumes about the dangerous of allowing civilians to arm themselves.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I don't think the problem is so much the availability of weapons to the public, but the perception of the type of people that the US military *seems* to go out of its way to attract.

I work with the British tri-service military every day and I find them to be incredibly polite and friendly and the further up the ranks they go, the more courteous they become. Any interview with a soldier on live television seems to reinforce this image.

Yet I do not feel this way about American soldiers in general. Overall, I find them quite aggressive and upfront and the sheer volume of friendly fire incidents does not go anyway to alleviate my concerns that the US military attracts the wrong sort of people who sign up just to blow shit up. I feel it should do more to discourage this sort of behaviour. Discipline does not equal aggression. Overall, it seems to be a different kind of disciplinary approach from our different militaries.

No offence to dbl or Tex, because I know both of you served but I'm going by my personal experiences of the soldiers I have encountered, met, spoken to and work with every day.

it's in the training.. unlike the British, the American military are trained to kill, to destroy the enemy, to win wars. little time is spent on question why kill or even who to kill.. that's done by people up the change.. it's also why so many American military crack up after the killing is over.. it's only then do they have the time and space to question all the deaths.

by **TexasBlue** Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:02 am

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
BecMacFeegle wrote:When even trained professionals can't be trusted with a gun, it speaks volumes about the dangerous of allowing civilians to arm themselves.
I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I don't think the problem is so much the availability of weapons to the public, but the perception of the type of people that the US military *seems* to go out of its way to attract.

I work with the British tri-service military every day and I find them to be incredibly polite and friendly and the further up the ranks they go, the more courteous they become. Any interview with a soldier on live television seems to reinforce this image.

Yet I do not feel this way about American soldiers in general. Overall, I find them quite aggressive and upfront and the sheer volume of friendly fire incidents does not go anyway to alleviate my concerns that the US military attracts the wrong sort of people who sign up just to blow shit up. I feel it should do more to discourage this sort of behaviour. Discipline does not equal aggression. Overall, it seems to be a different kind of disciplinary approach from our different militaries.

No offence to dbl or Tex, because I know both of you served but I'm going by my personal experiences of the soldiers I have encountered, met, spoken to and work with every day.

My personal feelings on what you said has one direction to point to. These soldiers that you speak of (USA) are a product of their leadership.... from their squad leaders, to their company commander, to their Battalion commander, to their division commander all the way on up. I've always said that leadership starts at the top.

If they have arrogant troops that are doing shitty things, one can always (in most cases) point to their commander(s).

by dblboggie Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:37 am

BecMacFeegle wrote:The reasoning that has been used here as justification for allowing people to have weapons in their own homes, is that they might need them if confronted with an armed intruder. I'd say that was a theatre of conflict - even if on a much smaller scale. If even trained soldiers can get it wrong in that situation, then untrained civilians certainly can. That was the point, however facetiously made.

The only reasoning I have made for allowing U.S. citizens to keep and bear arms are those made by the framers of our constitution; their reasoning gave rise to the Second Amendment. There is a very, very specific reason for that amendment that has little to do with armed intruders or hunting, or any of the other justifications made for the right to keep and bear arms.

However, there is a world of difference between a war zone and, say, a home invasion. The number of potential targets is vastly different, one to the other. The number of external variables that could enter into creating conditions that resulted in the shooting of the wrong target are vastly different one to the other. It really isn't something I would consider a valid comparison.

And of course all of this discussion is predicated on the meager reports of what is contained in the "leaked" documents even being true and accurate. Not having actually read said documents, not having had the opportunity to verify their sources, the credibility or reliability of those sources, the potential but unexposed motivations of those sources, the existence or lack thereof of any conflicting reports that might refute those sources, the presence of other documents that might moderate or modify the findings of the very few that have been discussed in the media (we are talking about nearly half a million documents); all of these things would seem to make our assumption here that there have indeed been a fully confirmed and significant increase in friendly fire incidents, just a little bit premature.

According this single article, there have only been 11 such incidents with the British forces and 18 involving American's targeted by their own forces, and it is not at all clear just over what time period all of these incidents took place. For a war zone where the enemy does not play by the rules of the international laws of warfare, wear no uniforms, hide and fight amongst civilians, have posed as "Iraqi" forces in "Iraqi" military uniforms, and have employed many other such deceptions, I do not find it at all remarkable that the soldiers on the ground are on a bit of a hair trigger, or that such incidents might occur. Did I wish it were different, of course I do. But wishing it won't make it so. This is war. It is ugly, brutal, vicious, bloody and people die, including innocent people; all the more so due to the tactics of the enemy we fight.

I myself prefer to withhold judgment until all the facts are in, have been weighed, given proper analysis and scrutiny and final conclusions made.

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:01 pm

dblboggie wrote:The only reasoning I have made for allowing U.S. citizens to keep and bear arms are those made by the framers of our constitution; their reasoning gave rise to the Second Amendment. There is a very, very specific reason for that amendment that has little to do with armed intruders or hunting, or any of the other justifications made for the right to keep and bear arms.

But here you appear to have used just that argument:

dblboggie wrote:Do you really think there are enough police to protect every single one of you? What would you do if you were confronted in your own home by a criminal with a firearm intent to do harm? How quickly do you think the police could get there (assuming you even had a chance to ring them)?

https://superiorpolitics.forumotion.com/politics-f1/violent-crime-declined-as-gun-sales-climbed-in-2009-t646.htm#4395

However, there is a world of difference between a war zone and, say, a home invasion. The number of potential targets is vastly different, one to the other. The number of external variables that could enter into creating conditions that resulted in the shooting of the wrong target are vastly different one to the other. It really isn't something I would consider a valid comparison.

No one mentioned a 'war zone', Merk referred to a 'theatre of conflict'. Yes the context of the original article was one of a war zone - but a conflict during war time can be anything from a full scale battle, to a one-on-one situation. And the issue of civilians having guns does not just relate to home invasion, civilians can, do and have entered into gun battles, drive by shootings and similar - such situations begin to look a lot more like those situations which can and do arise in war time. Guns are instruments of war, they are a means of killing or seriously injuring a person.

dblboggie wrote:And of course all of this discussion is predicated on the meager reports of what is contained in the "leaked" documents even being true and accurate. Not having actually read said documents, not having had the opportunity to verify their sources, the credibility or reliability of those sources, the potential but unexposed motivations of those sources, the existence or lack thereof of any conflicting reports that might refute those sources, the presence of other documents that might moderate or modify the findings of the very few that have been discussed in the media (we are talking about nearly half a million documents); all of these things would seem to make our assumption here that there have indeed been a fully confirmed and significant increase in friendly fire incidents, just a little bit premature.

Well, that's fine and dandy with regards to with holding comment on the initial document - but soldiers get killed in friendly fire, civilians get killed in conflicts - that is undeniable. The point I made was this: if even trained soldiers get it wrong, what does that say about civilians having guns in their homes? When you're scared and confused, whether on the streets of Basra or your own front room, when confronted with an armed man if a soldier can make a mistake, then the average, untrained man sure as hell can.

According this single article, there have only been 11 such incidents with the British forces and 18 involving American's targeted by their own forces, and it is not at all clear just over what time period all of these incidents took place. For a war zone where the enemy does not play by the rules of the international laws of warfare, wear no uniforms, hide and fight amongst civilians, have posed as "Iraqi" forces in "Iraqi" military uniforms, and have employed many other such deceptions, I do not find it at all remarkable that the soldiers on the ground are on a bit of a hair trigger, or that such incidents might occur. Did I wish it were different, of course I do. But wishing it won't make it so. This is war. It is ugly, brutal, vicious, bloody and people die, including innocent people; all the more so due to the tactics of the enemy we fight.

I agree with you, people need to take into account the difficult situations which the soldiers are having to face. And I have made no comment on this subject. What I would say, is that if attempts have been made to bury these incidents, that was wrong.

I myself prefer to withhold judgment until all the facts are in, have been weighed, given proper analysis and scrutiny and final conclusions made.

Absolutely. And the ramifications of these leaked documents will not be fully understood for some months. Though as far as I know, no one has yet denied that these reported incidents took place.

by dblboggie Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:00 pm

BecMacFeegle wrote:
dblboggie wrote:The only reasoning I have made for allowing U.S. citizens to keep and bear arms are those made by the framers of our constitution; their reasoning gave rise to the Second Amendment. There is a very, very specific reason for that amendment that has little to do with armed intruders or hunting, or any of the other justifications made for the right to keep and bear arms.

But here you appear to have used just that argument:

dblboggie wrote:Do you really think there are enough police to protect every single one of you? What would you do if you were confronted in your own home by a criminal with a firearm intent to do harm? How quickly do you think the police could get there (assuming you even had a chance to ring them)?

https://superiorpolitics.forumotion.com/politics-f1/violent-crime-declined-as-gun-sales-climbed-in-2009-t646.htm#4395

Quite true, and that is a valid expression of our right to keep and bear arms, but it is only a subsidiary benefit of this right, and it is not the principal reason for the Second Amendment. The quote by Jefferson in my signature below is the principal reason we have a Second Amendment.

That is not to say that the framers did not recognize those other subsidiary rights, they most certainly did. In fact it was Jefferson himself who quoted the Italian philosopher and politician Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria-Bonesana, when he wrote: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

But again, the principal reason for the Amendment is as Jefferson notes below.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
However, there is a world of difference between a war zone and, say, a home invasion. The number of potential targets is vastly different, one to the other. The number of external variables that could enter into creating conditions that resulted in the shooting of the wrong target are vastly different one to the other. It really isn't something I would consider a valid comparison.

No one mentioned a 'war zone', Merk referred to a 'theatre of conflict'. Yes the context of the original article was one of a war zone - but a conflict during war time can be anything from a full scale battle, to a one-on-one situation. And the issue of civilians having guns does not just relate to home invasion, civilians can, do and have entered into gun battles, drive by shootings and similar - such situations begin to look a lot more like those situations which can and do arise in war time. Guns are instruments of war, they are a means of killing or seriously injuring a person.

Well having lived in Los Angeles for 35 years, I have a passing familiarity with some of the more extreme situations involving civilian possession of firearms. And I will note here that unless one is willing to melt down every single firearm on the planet and then destroy the means of their production, that you will NEVER disarm criminals. You'll disarm honest people, sure. You'll set them up to be wide open targets of aggression and force by the lawless; but you will never disarm those who could care less about the laws of the land.

The splitting of the atom was accomplished to create the ultimate weapon of war, but we have since found ways to make that discovery pay off to the great benefit of mankind. So yes, firearms are an instrument of war, that was the primary reason for their invention, as it is with so many things, but firearms are more than just instruments of war. They are used by our police and citizens to check illegal aggression and use of coercion; as such they serve as a civilizing force in society, they are used, to this day by the way - at least in this country, to secure food for many American tables, and they are even used as a form of sport and competition, even in the Olympics. So while war may have given rise to the firearm, mankind in his infinite creativeness has discovered other uses for them, just as they have for the splitting of the atom.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
dblboggie wrote:And of course all of this discussion is predicated on the meager reports of what is contained in the "leaked" documents even being true and accurate. Not having actually read said documents, not having had the opportunity to verify their sources, the credibility or reliability of those sources, the potential but unexposed motivations of those sources, the existence or lack thereof of any conflicting reports that might refute those sources, the presence of other documents that might moderate or modify the findings of the very few that have been discussed in the media (we are talking about nearly half a million documents); all of these things would seem to make our assumption here that there have indeed been a fully confirmed and significant increase in friendly fire incidents, just a little bit premature.

Well, that's fine and dandy with regards to with holding comment on the initial document - but soldiers get killed in friendly fire, civilians get killed in conflicts - that is undeniable. The point I made was this: if even trained soldiers get it wrong, what does that say about civilians having guns in their homes? When you're scared and confused, whether on the streets of Basra or your own front room, when confronted with an armed man if a soldier can make a mistake, then the average, untrained man sure as hell can.

I understand all of this, but it has no satisfactory answer. Trained soldiers will always get it wrong some of the time; they always have and always will. I don't care how hard one trains (and I actually trained quite hard to simulate the effects of fear and confusion when I took my course on concealed carry), nothing can actually prepare one for the real thing, when bullets are flying at you and people are actually out to kill you. So no matter how hard we try, there will always be that fresh batch of replacements or reinforcements who've not yet been to the dance and accidents will inevitably follow. It's why they say war is hell... it is. You do your very best to minimize these things but you recognize that they will occur.

As for the average untrained civilian, two points I'd like to make. First, the stats for "friendly fire" or the shooting of the wrong person in civilian armed conflicts, where a law-abiding citizen is seeking to protect life and limb, show that are a very small number of such incidents - very, very small. Second, very few, and I mean very few, innocent law-abiding civilians are going to find themselves in a situation even remotely approximating a soldier in Basra (in reference to your comment above about drive-by shootings etc).

BecMacFeegle wrote:
According this single article, there have only been 11 such incidents with the British forces and 18 involving American's targeted by their own forces, and it is not at all clear just over what time period all of these incidents took place. For a war zone where the enemy does not play by the rules of the international laws of warfare, wear no uniforms, hide and fight amongst civilians, have posed as "Iraqi" forces in "Iraqi" military uniforms, and have employed many other such deceptions, I do not find it at all remarkable that the soldiers on the ground are on a bit of a hair trigger, or that such incidents might occur. Did I wish it were different, of course I do. But wishing it won't make it so. This is war. It is ugly, brutal, vicious, bloody and people die, including innocent people; all the more so due to the tactics of the enemy we fight.

I agree with you, people need to take into account the difficult situations which the soldiers are having to face. And I have made no comment on this subject. What I would say, is that if attempts have been made to bury these incidents, that was wrong.

I do not disagree with you on this one bit.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
I myself prefer to withhold judgment until all the facts are in, have been weighed, given proper analysis and scrutiny and final conclusions made.

Absolutely. And the ramifications of these leaked documents will not be fully understood for some months. Though as far as I know, no one has yet denied that these reported incidents took place.

I agree, though I would not expect a denial so soon. We are talking about 400,000 pages here, none of which have been put into any sort of context as yet.

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:08 pm

I don't want to get pulled into a discussion about your constitution. And frankly, I think Cesare was talking crap. You should be able to discuss one issue at a time, without trying to hide behind what is constitutional and what isn't. Americans are residents of planet Earth, are they not? You are human beings and subject to the human nature you're always so keen to refer to, dbl?

My point was this: if even trained soldiers can get it wrong (and we know they do), then why do we trust civilians with guns?

Well having lived in Los Angeles for 35 years, I have a passing familiarity with some of the more extreme situations involving civilian possession of firearms. And I will note here that unless one is willing to melt down every single firearm on the planet and then destroy the means of their production, that you will NEVER disarm criminals. You'll disarm honest people, sure. You'll set them up to be wide open targets of aggression and force by the lawless; but you will never disarm those who could care less about the laws of the land.

Really? Then how do you explain the statistics with regards to gun crime and homicide rates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Matt posted this for you before, here:

https://superiorpolitics.forumotion.com/politics-f1/violent-crime-declined-as-gun-sales-climbed-in-2009-t646.htm#4395

The splitting of the atom was accomplished to create the ultimate weapon of war, but we have since found ways to make that discovery pay off to the great benefit of mankind. So yes, firearms are an instrument of war, that was the primary reason for their invention, as it is with so many things, but firearms are more than just instruments of war. They are used by our police and citizens to check illegal aggression and use of coercion; as such they serve as a civilizing force in society, they are used, to this day by the way - at least in this country, to secure food for many American tables, and they are even used as a form of sport and competition, even in the Olympics. So while war may have given rise to the firearm, mankind in his infinite creativeness has discovered other uses for them, just as they have for the splitting of the atom.

I have no problem with people using guns for sport - so when they aren't using them, they are kept locked away in gun clubs. I have no problem with farmers and hunters using them - so long as they are kept securely under lock and key when not in use. In fact, I have absolutely no issue with a person who needs a gun as part of their work owning one, it's when a person has a gun for protection, for safety, for respect that I have a problem. There is something seriously wrong if you think you need a gun to be safe in your home, if you think a measure of safety means having the equipment to kill another human being. That is a serious devaluation of human life.

I understand all of this, but it has no satisfactory answer. Trained soldiers will always get it wrong some of the time; they always have and always will. I don't care how hard one trains (and I actually trained quite hard to simulate the effects of fear and confusion when I took my course on concealed carry), nothing can actually prepare one for the real thing, when bullets are flying at you and people are actually out to kill you. So no matter how hard we try, there will always be that fresh batch of replacements or reinforcements who've not yet been to the dance and accidents will inevitably follow. It's why they say war is hell... it is. You do your very best to minimize these things but you recognize that they will occur.

Absolutely, but it is our duty as civilians to hold our military to account, to ensure that they are doing everything to ensure that collateral damage, friendly fire and civilian deaths is kept to an absolute minimum - and that they are reporting and following up on everything they should be - as with the torture claims. It is not enough to say 'shit happens', if enough is not being done to prevent it in the first place. And if attempts have been made to cover information up that we should have had access to, that makes me very wary.

As for the average untrained civilian, two points I'd like to make. First, the stats for "friendly fire" or the shooting of the wrong person in civilian armed conflicts, where a law-abiding citizen is seeking to protect life and limb, show that are a very small number of such incidents - very, very small. Second, very few, and I mean very few, innocent law-abiding civilians are going to find themselves in a situation even remotely approximating a soldier in Basra (in reference to your comment above about drive-by shootings etc).

That was rather the point. In the army, conflict can be anything from one on one fighting, to a large scale battle, you don't need to be in gun battle in Basra to suffer from the problems of fear and confusion, bad judgement and an itchy trigger finger. I don't see the point in splitting hair over what constitutes 'conflict'. And as far as what civilians come in contact with - it really depends where you happen to be in the world. For example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/18/14-dead-rio-gun-battle

I agree, though I would not expect a denial so soon. We are talking about 400,000 pages here, none of which have been put into any sort of context as yet.

I would expect a denial if these documents are not what they are supposed to be. The context is that these are the official documents which have been leaked. The Pentagon, the Dept. Defence and Hilary Clinton seem to know enough to condemn Assange on the basis that their contents is dangerous, then they should know enough to indicate whether they are these official documents or not and whether or not the incidents they report on happened or not.

by **TexasBlue** Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:20 pm

Bec, lemme put forth a hypothetical situation just for shits ad giggles. Then i'll let you and Dbl get back to scrapping. Very Happy

I have a 12 gauge shotgun next to my bed. Let's say you know I have it and you are less than the salt of the earth (criminal minded). Are you going to bother breaking into my home in the middle of the night knowing I have that thing?

Another scenario; let's say i'm sleeping and i hear someone breaking thru my living room window or getting in the old fashioned way (the door). Let's say i wake up and grab my shotgun. When i "cock" that thing, do you think things are going to end peacefully? We may never know. I can tell you one thing; if someone has broken into my home and i shot them, dead or alive, my state law won't charge me for assault/murder. That's as long as i feared for my life. But it's hard to disprove that in a court of law also.

Minnesota is a very liberal state. But most of it's residents will argue the same points as Dbl has been. Most, except the most leftward here in this state. Not saying you are left, just those here where i live.

Ok... back to our regularly scheduled program: Bec vs Dbl.

by Guest Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:32 pm

BecMacFeegle wrote:I don't want to get pulled into a discussion about your constitution. And frankly, I think Cesare was talking crap. You should be able to discuss one issue at a time, without trying to hide behind what is constitutional and what isn't. Americans are residents of planet Earth, are they not? You are human beings and subject to the human nature you're always so keen to refer to, dbl?

Pretty much what I've been trying to say to *deleted* the last three days.

As much as I might agree, you're better than that merk

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:54 pm

Scrapping? There was me thinking I was being a [censored] cat.

I have a 12 gauge shotgun next to my bed. Let's say you know I have it and you are less than the salt of the earth (criminal minded). Are you going to bother breaking into my home in the middle of the night knowing I have that thing?

What are the chances of a person knowing you have a shotgun by your bed until they break in? Do you have a sign outside your house saying 'I sleep with a shotgun by my bed'? In which case - do you actually need the shotgun? Smile

Another scenario; let's say i'm sleeping and i hear someone breaking thru my living room window or getting in the old fashioned way (the door). Let's say i wake up and grab my shotgun. When i "cock" that thing, do you think things are going to end peacefully? We may never know.

Do you really want to kill someone for breaking into your home? What if they aren't armed? And what if they are? In a situation where you're both armed, it's very likely that one of you won't come out of that situation alive - do you think your chances of survival are improved by having a weapon, or decreased?

If someone were to break into my home, I wouldn't want to be armed. Seriously. If someone intends to kill me, I'm not sure my having a gun is really going to improve my chances of survival - if someone just wants to rob me, I may hate the bastards but I don't want to become a killer just to stop them taking my stuff.

by **TexasBlue** Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm

BecMacFeegle wrote:Scrapping? There was me thinking I was being a [censored] cat.

HAHA! The only word on the censor list is the nasty word related to the one you insinuated; c*nt. And i hate that word.

BecMacFeegle wrote:What are the chances of a person knowing you have a shotgun by your bed until they break in? Do you have a sign outside your house saying 'I sleep with a shotgun by my bed'?

My point. If people know i have one, it ain't gonna happen.

BecMacFeegle wrote:In which case - do you actually need the shotgun?

Do i need a surround sound stereo system? Nope. But i wanted it and i sure like it.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Do you really want to kill someone for breaking into your home?

Absolutely not.

BecMacFeegle wrote:What if they aren't armed?

Then he'll wait quietly sitting on my floor while i wait for the police to come.

BecMacFeegle wrote:And what if they are?

One of us isn't going to walk away without something happening.

BecMacFeegle wrote:In a situation where you're both armed, it's very likely that one of you won't come out of that situation alive

As stated above.

BecMacFeegle wrote:do you think your chances of survival are improved by having a weapon, or decreased?

It's as equal if not more so as if i didn't have one. People will kill you these days just because.

BecMacFeegle wrote:If someone were to break into my home, I wouldn't want to be armed. Seriously. If someone intends to kill me, I'm not sure my having a gun is really going to improve my chances of survival - if someone just wants to rob me, I may hate the bastards but I don't want to become a killer just to stop them taking my stuff.

I'm not going to shoot someone if they're robbing me. I'd let them know i have a 12 gauge pointed at them and if they want to live, to put their weapon down slowly and then to lay down prone on the floor.

Will it go exactly like that? Probably not. But in more cases than not, people have came out on the winning side in this scenario.

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:46 pm

TexasBlue wrote:
BecMacFeegle wrote:Scrapping? There was me thinking I was being a [censored] cat.

HAHA! The only word on the censor list is the nasty word related to the one you insinuated; c*nt. And i hate that word.

What happened to my freedom of speech, huh?! Actually, I hate that word too, I only use it in the most severe road rage incidents.

TexasBlue wrote:
BecMacFeegle wrote:What are the chances of a person knowing you have a shotgun by your bed until they break in? Do you have a sign outside your house saying 'I sleep with a shotgun by my bed'?

My point. If people know i have one, it ain't gonna happen.

Well - not necessarily - in fact, if someone knows you have a gun and they really want to rob you, they might even be more likely to just shoot you dead rather than take any risks. And in the real (non-hypothetical) world, people aren't going to know you have a gun.

TexasBlue wrote:
BecMacFeegle wrote:In which case - do you actually need the shotgun?

Do i need a surround sound stereo system? Nope. But i wanted it and i sure like it.

I'm not sure 'I like it' is enough of a reason for having a dangerous weapon lying around.

TexasBlue wrote:
BecMacFeegle wrote:What if they aren't armed?

Then he'll wait quietly sitting on my floor while i wait for the police to come.

Well, that's the crux of the problem - maybe he hasn't seen a copy of your script of 'how this is supposed to go.'

TexasBlue wrote:
BecMacFeegle wrote:And what if they are?

One of us isn't going to walk away without something happening.

BecMacFeegle wrote:In a situation where you're both armed, it's very likely that one of you won't come out of that situation alive

As stated above.

And what if it's you? If you hadn't had a gun, is it more or less likely that one of you would have died?

TexasBlue wrote:
BecMacFeegle wrote:do you think your chances of survival are improved by having a weapon, or decreased?

It's as equal if not more so as if i didn't have one. People will kill you these days just because.

You are more likely to get shot if you have a gun. If you weren't armed then that gunman can sit you on the floor, tie you up, rob your stuff and leave. No one gets shot. What reason would he have for shooting you if you posed no threat to him? And who is more prepared to pull that trigger - the man whose taken the time to sneak into your house with a weapon in the middle of the night - or the person who has just woken up, in fear of the person whose creeping around. I'm not saying there aren't animals out there who'd shoot you just for the hell of it, but they're in the minority - and you can't pull a gun on everyone on the off-chance they're one of the psychos, where your chance of survival is 50/50 at best.

TexasBlue wrote:
BecMacFeegle wrote:If someone were to break into my home, I wouldn't want to be armed. Seriously. If someone intends to kill me, I'm not sure my having a gun is really going to improve my chances of survival - if someone just wants to rob me, I may hate the bastards but I don't want to become a killer just to stop them taking my stuff.

I'm not going to shoot someone if they're robbing me. I'd let them know i have a 12 gauge pointed at them and if they want to live, to put their weapon down slowly and then to lay down prone on the floor.

Will it go exactly like that? Probably not. But in more cases than not, people have came out on the winning side in this scenario.

Really, can you prove that? And by 'win', do you mean they killed the robber - or that the robber did as they were told and put the gun down? In either instance, I'd think it would be better never to be in that stand off situation. You don't need a gun to deter robbers - there are other ways. And if guns weren't so readily available, you'd have less chance of a gunman breaking into your house in the first place. Yes, the most hardened criminals will still be able to get hold of them if they want to - but petty thieves and burglars are less likely to get hold of them. Fewer guns = fewer gun crimes.

by dblboggie Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:39 pm

BecMacFeegle wrote:I don't want to get pulled into a discussion about your constitution. And frankly, I think Cesare was talking crap. You should be able to discuss one issue at a time, without trying to hide behind what is constitutional and what isn't. Americans are residents of planet Earth, are they not? You are human beings and subject to the human nature you're always so keen to refer to, dbl?

My point was this: if even trained soldiers can get it wrong (and we know they do), then why do we trust civilians with guns?

I am not trying to pull you into a discussion of anything. I did not originate this offshoot (pardon the pun) of the topic. It was your remark on the civilian possession of firearms that I was responding to. And I have no idea why you would think that I am “trying to hide behind” our constitution. I am hiding nothing. Of course American’s are residents of Earth, and we are human beings subject to human nature, what is your point? That we should homogenize our laws with the rest of the world?

I don’t know about the thinking of the average citizen in the U.K., but here we trust our civilians with “guns” because it is the LAW! We Yanks are really sticklers on that “rule of law” thing, particularly when it comes to our Bill of Rights. This is not hiding behind the constitution or anything else for that matter. Every law is always a matter of give and take. We surrender some of our autonomy for the greater good; it is always a trade off.

Your point seems to be that since even trained soldiers can get it wrong, then we should scrap our Bill of Rights because how on earth could we possibly trust untrained civilians with firearms? I am not buying that premise in the slightest. Our right to keep and bear arms was considered important enough by the framers to make it a right set aside and clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights. There is a very good reason for that that remains valid to this very day due to the very human nature that you reference.

We trust civilians with guns in our country because the government has no choice in the matter! It is the LAW! We trust law-abiding citizens with guns because the stats bear out that legal owners are not the one’s rampaging in the streets wantonly killing people left and right. Rather, the gun violence Europeans seem so focused on largely occurs in very specific and well defined venues and tends to skew naked stats devoid of any context upward, painting a false picture of American society as a whole outside of those specific venues. Where I live, for instance, I don’t “need” a gun and I actually go to bed each night with my windows open and my front door unlocked.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
Well having lived in Los Angeles for 35 years, I have a passing familiarity with some of the more extreme situations involving civilian possession of firearms. And I will note here that unless one is willing to melt down every single firearm on the planet and then destroy the means of their production, that you will NEVER disarm criminals. You'll disarm honest people, sure. You'll set them up to be wide open targets of aggression and force by the lawless; but you will never disarm those who could care less about the laws of the land.

Really? Then how do you explain the statistics with regards to gun crime and homicide rates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

It actually proves my point, as well as Cesare's ; at least in this country. The thing this stat (if it is true – and I am not conceding that point) does not do is give any context. The areas in America that could cause a spike like that are the very areas with the strictest gun control laws in the nation. I have repeated this many times but apparently this would appear to be an inconvenient truth. Our major urban areas are the source of a majority of gun and gang violence. In these major cities, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, D.C., etc, gun laws are the most restrictive, so much so that one of these cities was dragged into court and fought all the way to the Supreme Court, and lost! D.C.’s laws were so insane that gun ownership (if one could legally acquire one) was rendered null. And yet D.C. was the murder capital of the country! Why? Because criminals could give a rat’s ass about the gun laws! So in these highly urban areas, the only people carrying firearms and the very people who SHOULD be banned from possessing them - criminals! Instead, because law-abiding citizens cannot legally possess or bear firearms, they are at the mercy of armed thugs and a wholly inadequate police force unable to be everywhere at once.

As for the stats themselves, if their source is the U.N., all bets are off. I lost all respect for that den of thieves eons ago.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Matt posted this for you before, here:

https://superiorpolitics.forumotion.com/politics-f1/violent-crime-declined-as-gun-sales-climbed-in-2009-t646.htm#4395

This link points to a post by you. And since you reference it, I would like to make a long overdue response to something you said in that very post:

BecMacFeegle wrote:the reason that gun crime is rising right now is because inner city kids in this country are emulating the gun culture of gangs in America.

So it is America’s fault yet again? We can't catch a break from anything! What, those inner city kids don’t have parents? They are the unknowing pawns of the American gang gun culture? How would one go about solving this problem if it were indeed America’s fault? Would the U.K. have to shut down the importation of all American movie, tv, video, literature, music, gaming and internet products that in any way referenced gang gun culture? Perhaps just firewall off the U.K. from all American media products of every kind wholesale? And immediately censor any U.K. spinoffs of said American media products?

Come on. Really? That is the ONLY reason gun crime is rising in the U.K.?

And yes, I am being somewhat cheeky. Snicker

BecMacFeegle wrote:
The splitting of the atom was accomplished to create the ultimate weapon of war, but we have since found ways to make that discovery pay off to the great benefit of mankind. So yes, firearms are an instrument of war, that was the primary reason for their invention, as it is with so many things, but firearms are more than just instruments of war. They are used by our police and citizens to check illegal aggression and use of coercion; as such they serve as a civilizing force in society, they are used, to this day by the way - at least in this country, to secure food for many American tables, and they are even used as a form of sport and competition, even in the Olympics. So while war may have given rise to the firearm, mankind in his infinite creativeness has discovered other uses for them, just as they have for the splitting of the atom.

I have no problem with people using guns for sport - so when they aren't using them, they are kept locked away in gun clubs. I have no problem with farmers and hunters using them - so long as they are kept securely under lock and key when not in use. In fact, I have absolutely no issue with a person who needs a gun as part of their work owning one, it's when a person has a gun for protection, for safety, for respect that I have a problem. There is something seriously wrong if you think you need a gun to be safe in your home, if you think a measure of safety means having the equipment to kill another human being. That is a serious devaluation of human life.

Well I have a big problem with the thinking that says responsible, law-abiding adults are just not to be trusted under any circumstances with firearms for self protection.

To say that there is something seriously wrong about a person who owns a gun for protection is something I find remarkably shortsighted. I was in the Boy Scouts when I grew up – our motto was “always be prepared.” I think this is a very laudable objective, applicable in all parts of a person’s life. Clearly we do not share this same pragmatic view. I believe that being prepared for any eventuality is a good thing. Throughout our lives we are taught to prepare for unforeseen events, such as a loss of a job (savings), auto accidents (insurance), natural disasters (emergency food, water and supplies), and all manner of events we hope will never happen, do not believe will ever befall us, but we prepare (if we are prudent) anyway. To single out home or personal defense in the form of a gun is narrow minded in my view.

And if a criminal were to break into my home and threaten my life or my families lives, and I hadn’t been prepared and did not have the means use deadly force to save their lives and that criminal killed us all, that would be an appropriate valuation of life to you? Really? You think that people who have firearms at home for protection (just in case) are just itching to “bust a cap” into some criminal? You think the mere possession of a firearm at home for protection automatically means that person seriously devalues life?!? I would submit that they do NOT devalue life as much as they value theirs and those of their families! I would submit that the VAST majority of such people, decent, hard-working, law-abiding citizens pray they NEVER have to use their firearms in self defense or take another’s life. But they have decided to take responsibility for their safety by being a responsible gun-owner, and not just leave it to chance or the police, who are never more than 5 or 10 minutes away, more than enough time to get murdered in one’s own home and make a clean get away with some loot to boot.

I will speak from personal experience. I lived in some truly dodgy neighborhoods when I lived in Los Angeles. In one apartment building, some thug’s pit-bull killed a cat in the hallway right outside my door, splattering it with cat guts and blood. The police were regular visitors to this small complex. I kept a gun in my apartment, and I always kept it close by, my youngest son was living with me at the time and so it wasn’t just my safety that I was responsible for. And yet for the entire time I lived there (got out as quickly as I could), I never once wished to be confronted with the choice of having to shoot an intruder, much less shoot one dead. And I would be a very, very happy person if I never, ever had to draw my firearm in self defense. Just because I’ve made the choice to be prepared, does not automatically mean I have a “serious devaluation of human life,” it simply means I value my life as much as the next person, and I will not allow it to be snuffed out by someone who DOES have a “serious devaluation of human life.”

BecMacFeegle wrote:
I understand all of this, but it has no satisfactory answer. Trained soldiers will always get it wrong some of the time; they always have and always will. I don't care how hard one trains (and I actually trained quite hard to simulate the effects of fear and confusion when I took my course on concealed carry), nothing can actually prepare one for the real thing, when bullets are flying at you and people are actually out to kill you. So no matter how hard we try, there will always be that fresh batch of replacements or reinforcements who've not yet been to the dance and accidents will inevitably follow. It's why they say war is hell... it is. You do your very best to minimize these things but you recognize that they will occur.

Absolutely, but it is our duty as civilians to hold our military to account, to ensure that they are doing everything to ensure that collateral damage, friendly fire and civilian deaths is kept to an absolute minimum - and that they are reporting and following up on everything they should be - as with the torture claims. It is not enough to say 'shit happens', if enough is not being done to prevent it in the first place. And if attempts have been made to cover information up that we should have had access to, that makes me very wary.

All of this is a given. Warfare has changed dramatically in the last half century and civilized nations have invested enormous sums of money into the development of weapon systems that allow them to wage war on an ever more precise level specifically to prevent collateral damage and innocent deaths. And I personally do believe that we are doing every thing we should to hold our military to account. But this is a massive organization and there will always be bad actors. They should be weeded out and held to account if they violate the law, period.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
As for the average untrained civilian, two points I'd like to make. First, the stats for "friendly fire" or the shooting of the wrong person in civilian armed conflicts, where a law-abiding citizen is seeking to protect life and limb, show that are a very small number of such incidents - very, very small. Second, very few, and I mean very few, innocent law-abiding civilians are going to find themselves in a situation even remotely approximating a soldier in Basra (in reference to your comment above about drive-by shootings etc).

That was rather the point. In the army, conflict can be anything from one on one fighting, to a large scale battle, you don't need to be in gun battle in Basra to suffer from the problems of fear and confusion, bad judgement and an itchy trigger finger. I don't see the point in splitting hair over what constitutes 'conflict'. And as far as what civilians come in contact with - it really depends where you happen to be in the world. For example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/18/14-dead-rio-gun-battle

Yes, well, thankfully America is not Brazil – though conditions on our southern border grow sketchier by the day.

As for “splitting hair,” you might have a different view of this had you had any experience with having to split that hair, say on a live-fire range or in a live-fire home invasion simulation (as I have). While it is certainly true that conflict is conflict, that being under fire is being under fire, there are differences between a battle field as I have described it, and being in a civilian environment faced with armed criminals. The same accidents can certainly happen, but there are different likelihoods of certain outcomes between the two. Call it “hair splitting” if you like, just happens to be my experience with it.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
I agree, though I would not expect a denial so soon. We are talking about 400,000 pages here, none of which have been put into any sort of context as yet.

I would expect a denial if these documents are not what they are supposed to be. The context is that these are the official documents which have been leaked. The Pentagon, the Dept. Defence and Hilary Clinton seem to know enough to condemn Assange on the basis that their contents is dangerous, then they should know enough to indicate whether they are these official documents or not and whether or not the incidents they report on happened or not.

I would not expect a denial from anyone who was not on the ground with the authors of these reports. I think to confirm or deny any of it before a thorough review would be irresponsible, official documents or not. It would not be the first time an “official” document was wrong, forged, exaggerated and so on.

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:56 pm

I am not trying to pull you into a discussion of anything. I did not originate this offshoot (pardon the pun) of the topic. It was your remark on the civilian possession of firearms that I was responding to. And I have no idea why you would think that I am “trying to hide behind” our constitution. I am hiding nothing.

Good, then we can discuss gun laws point by point, instead of returning to what the constitution says every time a point is raised.

Of course American’s are residents of Earth, and we are human beings subject to human nature, what is your point? That we should homogenize our laws with the rest of the world?

That by having a constitution doesn't mean that you can refer to the constitution every time you have a point to make about gun laws. If I say: if even trained soldiers can make mistakes in stressful situations, then why should civilians be trusted to have them in there homes? And you respond with: well under our constitution...then we can't have a conversation about 'guns' and how people behave with a gun in their hand. We can only have a conversation about what is constitutional and what isn't. Well, your constitution has zero impact on me, my life, my opinions or even human nature and universal truth. There are universal truths, and the American constitution - however you might feel about its sanctity, does not provide some sort of buffer which overrides those universal truths.

I don’t know about the thinking of the average citizen in the U.K., but here we trust our civilians with “guns” because it is the LAW!

What does that mean? You might allow them to have guns, but you can't trust their behaviour with those guns, you can't place any trust in how they will choose to use those guns because you have a law that tells you they can have them. The law doesn't magically make them sensible, trustworthy or even mentally fit to have a gun. I wouldn't trust most of the people on this planet with a gun in their hands, and a constitution wouldn't change that.

We Yanks are really sticklers on that “rule of law” thing, particularly when it comes to our Bill of Rights. This is not hiding behind the constitution or anything else for that matter. Every law is always a matter of give and take. We surrender some of our autonomy for the greater good; it is always a trade off.

Well I'm sure that's fabulous for all you people who obey the law - but one of the chief reasons you and Tex keep throwing out for why you have guns is for those people who abuse those rights and use those guns to abuse others - so clearly you have a problem in America with those people who aren't willing to make that trade off and who abuse their rights.

Your point seems to be that since even trained soldiers can get it wrong, then we should scrap our Bill of Rights because how on earth could we possibly trust untrained civilians with firearms?

Oh here we go again with the constitution. Do you see what I mean? I say 'guns are bad', you say 'but what about our constitution?!' I'm sorry, but your constitution doesn't change what I think and it doesn't change human nature. So what about it? If guns are bad, have one of those famous trade offs and get rid of them. Have baseball bats instead of guns. It does only say you have the right to bear arms, doesn't it? You don't think you have a constitutional right to nukes (also arms) so why guns? Why not knives, why not hockey sticks, hell why not a sling shot?

I am not buying that premise in the slightest. Our right to keep and bear arms was considered important enough by the framers to make it a right set aside and clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights.

So what? For 2,000 years people thought they shouldn't have sex with people of the same sex because the Bible said so - didn't make it right and it didn't make it true. If you can make changes - why not this one? Just because the framers thought it was right in that context, at that time - doesn't mean it is right here and now, much less universally. Things change.

There is a very good reason for that that remains valid to this very day due to the very human nature that you reference.

Human nature says someone whose scared with a gun is more likely to shoot someone they see as a threat. I'd rather have a scared person without a gun.

We trust civilians with guns in our country because the government has no choice in the matter! It is the LAW!

You allow citizens to have guns because it is the law, it doesn't mean they can be trusted with them. And if enough people want a law which bans guns, I'm sure you'd get one. So long as you all want guns - that's your business. Doesn't mean I have to think it's a good idea for people to have guns and it doesn't mean I have to pretend I think a stupid reason for doing something is a good one. I don't trust the average person with that type of responsibility. End of.

We trust law-abiding citizens with guns because the stats bear out that legal owners are not the one’s rampaging in the streets wantonly killing people left and right. Rather, the gun violence Europeans seem so focused on largely occurs in very specific and well defined venues and tends to skew naked stats devoid of any context upward, painting a false picture of American society as a whole outside of those specific venues. Where I live, for instance, I don’t “need” a gun and I actually go to bed each night with my windows open and my front door unlocked.

You and I first started talking about gun crime when you posted that article about the rising levels of gun crime in the UK - and tried to imply that was because we stopped the private ownership of hand guns - which just isn't true. You say you have a different culture - fine. I'm not lobbying for you to change it, if the majority of Americans want guns, what has that got to do with me? But I have yet to see a good argument for people having and keeping dangerous weapons in their home either because they want to, because it happens to be their right, or because they think it makes them feel safe in case they are attacked. I don't like guns, I don't trust people with them - and your constitution isn't going to change that. It just makes it legal for an entire nation of people to do a very dangerous thing. They are weapons. They are used to kill people - you can dress them up however you like, but underneath, they're things we use to kill other people. So what if the stats say most people are sensible with them - what about the ones who aren't? Aren't they the ones that make those law abiding citizens feel they need a gun in the first place?

It actually proves my point, as well as Cesare's ; at least in this country. The thing this stat (if it is true – and I am not conceding that point) does not do is give any context. The areas in America that could cause a spike like that are the very areas with the strictest gun control laws in the nation. I have repeated this many times but apparently this would appear to be an inconvenient truth. Our major urban areas are the source of a majority of gun and gang violence. In these major cities, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, D.C., etc, gun laws are the most restrictive, so much so that one of these cities was dragged into court and fought all the way to the Supreme Court, and lost! D.C.’s laws were so insane that gun ownership (if one could legally acquire one) was rendered null. And yet D.C. was the murder capital of the country! Why? Because criminals could give a rat’s ass about the gun laws! So in these highly urban areas, the only people carrying firearms and the very people who SHOULD be banned from possessing them - criminals! Instead, because law-abiding citizens cannot legally possess or bear firearms, they are at the mercy of armed thugs and a wholly inadequate police force unable to be everywhere at once.

Why? You don't think it has anything to do with the ease of getting hold of a gun anywhere else in the country? You don't think it has anything to do with being part of a nation which believes it is ok to get hold of a gun if you want one? And the argument that you should be able to arm yourself in case you are attacked by a criminal is scary. The police can't be everywhere? So that entitles you to take the law into your own hands?! That makes it ok to kill another human being? What does that really have to do with anything? And in a country where guns are comparatively common place, criminals are never going to find it that hard to get hold of guns, are they?

As for the stats themselves, if their source is the U.N., all bets are off. I lost all respect for that den of thieves eons ago.

That's just ridiculous. Den of thieves?

So it is America’s fault yet again? We can't catch a break from anything! What, those inner city kids don’t have parents? They are the unknowing pawns of the American gang gun culture? How would one go about solving this problem if it were indeed America’s fault? Would the U.K. have to shut down the importation of all American movie, tv, video, literature, music, gaming and internet products that in any way referenced gang gun culture? Perhaps just firewall off the U.K. from all American media products of every kind wholesale? And immediately censor any U.K. spinoffs of said American media products?

Come on. Really? That is the ONLY reason gun crime is rising in the U.K.?

Oh stop acting like America is such a victim. Yes, the rise of gun crime is down to inner city kids emulating American gang culture. Sorry, but that's the way it is. If you want to feel victimised by that fact, sorry, but that's the way it is. Does American culture have an impact on other countries? Yes. Is that your problem - well no, not really. It's ours. Do they have parents, why yes they do. Don't the ones in America? I suspect the reason gun crime is on the rise is a break down of social values in the most deprived areas - the same reason I suspect you have the same problems in America. We have problems we need to sort out. We need to stop illegal weapons getting into this country. THAT is the best way to deal with out illegal gun culture - introducing more guns so we can all arm ourselves against those 'thugs' is not the way to go. That will make the problem much, much worse.

Well I have a big problem with the thinking that says responsible, law-abiding adults are just not to be trusted under any circumstances with firearms for self protection.

Really? Well, tough. You're the one who focusses so intensely upon human nature. As far as I'm concerned it's human nature which dictates that most of us should not be trusted with a dangerous weapon which we can use with impunity.

To say that there is something seriously wrong about a person who owns a gun for protection is something I find remarkably shortsighted. I was in the Boy Scouts when I grew up – our motto was “always be prepared.”

Yes but that phrase doesn't end with 'to blow someone's head off'.

I think this is a very laudable objective, applicable in all parts of a person’s life. Clearly we do not share this same pragmatic view. I believe that being prepared for any eventuality is a good thing. Throughout our lives we are taught to prepare for unforeseen events, such as a loss of a job (savings), auto accidents (insurance), natural disasters (emergency food, water and supplies), and all manner of events we hope will never happen, do not believe will ever befall us, but we prepare (if we are prudent) anyway. To single out home or personal defense in the form of a gun is narrow minded in my view.

Well, I see your view as narrow minded. To assume people should be entitled to have a gun 'in case the worst happens' is dangerous, to my mind. If someone bursts into your house with a gun, you also having a gun is probably the quickest way you can go to getting yourself killed.

And if a criminal were to break into my home and threaten my life or my families lives, and I hadn’t been prepared and did not have the means use deadly force to save their lives and that criminal killed us all, that would be an appropriate valuation of life to you? Really? You think that people who have firearms at home for protection (just in case) are just itching to “bust a cap” into some criminal? You think the mere possession of a firearm at home for protection automatically means that person seriously devalues life?!?

The assumption you are making is that the criminal would be breaking in would be willing to kill you. You make the assumption that they are armed. You make the assumption that they are a monster willing to murder you and your family. Yes, I think it is a devaluation of human life to think that you are entitled to have the means of ending one so easily to hand. I have never implied that I think they are eager to kill another human being - but to think so low of someone else's life that your first thought would be to reach for a firearm if you caught an intruder in your home, is disturbing, and yes, implies a devaluation of human life.

I would submit that they do NOT devalue life as much as they value theirs and those of their families! I would submit that the VAST majority of such people, decent, hard-working, law-abiding citizens pray they NEVER have to use their firearms in self defense or take another’s life. But they have decided to take responsibility for their safety by being a responsible gun-owner, and not just leave it to chance or the police, who are never more than 5 or 10 minutes away, more than enough time to get murdered in one’s own home and make a clean get away with some loot to boot.

Oh I see, so people who don't have guns are irresponsible and don't value they're families lives? And I am the one making generalisations? I would propose that if those people are so concerned about gun wielding maniacs that they would be lobbying to get the guns off the streets and out of people's hands. Best way to do that? Well a good first step would be to stop people thinking everyone is entitled to own a dangerous weapon and a means of killing other human beings.

I will speak from personal experience. I lived in some truly dodgy neighborhoods when I lived in Los Angeles. In one apartment building, some thug’s pit-bull killed a cat in the hallway right outside my door, splattering it with cat guts and blood. The police were regular visitors to this small complex. I kept a gun in my apartment, and I always kept it close by, my youngest son was living with me at the time and so it wasn’t just my safety that I was responsible for. And yet for the entire time I lived there (got out as quickly as I could), I never once wished to be confronted with the choice of having to shoot an intruder, much less shoot one dead. And I would be a very, very happy person if I never, ever had to draw my firearm in self defense. Just because I’ve made the choice to be prepared, does not automatically mean I have a “serious devaluation of human life,” it simply means I value my life as much as the next person, and I will not allow it to be snuffed out by someone who DOES have a “serious devaluation of human life.”

And these people in your society who you believe value life so little, who would break into a persons home and shoot them as soon as rob them - where have they learnt to have such little respect for the lives of others? Kill or be killed? Not a great philosophy to live by if you want to foster respect and love for your fellow human beings.

All of this is a given. Warfare has changed dramatically in the last half century and civilized nations have invested enormous sums of money into the development of weapon systems that allow them to wage war on an ever more precise level specifically to prevent collateral damage and innocent deaths. And I personally do believe that we are doing every thing we should to hold our military to account. But this is a massive organization and there will always be bad actors. They should be weeded out and held to account if they violate the law, period.

Great. Then transparency from our military is a great place to ensure they are called to account.

I would not expect a denial from anyone who was not on the ground with the authors of these reports. I think to confirm or deny any of it before a thorough review would be irresponsible, official documents or not. It would not be the first time an “official” document was wrong, forged, exaggerated and so on.

We shall see - and I will wait before I start making any decisions - but none of those would constitute good reason for keeping them under wraps.

by **TexasBlue** Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:22 pm

Much of our gun crime is within our inner cities. That is a fact, not an assumption. The problem lies there more than anything. How to fix that problem? I have no clue.

But we've seen what happens when guns are "taken away" from these areas, specially Chicago and Washington DC. Gun crime rose.

So, basically, we took one thing away and the opposite happened. But in Minneapolis, gun crimes fell dramatically when the state passed a conceal-carry law several years ago. Same thing happened in Dallas, Texas. Gun crime fell. Did it disappear? Nope.

Just sayin'.

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:50 pm

TexasBlue wrote:Much of our gun crime is within our inner cities. That is a fact, not an assumption. The problem lies there more than anything. How to fix that problem? I have no clue.

It's the same here. But I would assume that most crime is centred on inner cities. More people, more crime. Doesn't mean it isn't also a problem else where, you just get less of it. Considerably less of it in the case of gun crime over here.

But we've seen what happens when guns are "taken away" from these areas, specially Chicago and Washington DC. Gun crime rose.

Well, sure, that's in America. Here when we took away guns, it fell. The difference is I suppose that in America it seems the majority of you are in favour of keeping guns - I assume, please correct me if I'm wrong. I happen to think that your reasoning for wanting guns is faulty - and that's where I'm arguing from. In the UK, the majority of people don't like them, don't want them, and feel happier and safer without them. The other factor is that I can't see how on earth you could try and take away guns in specific areas and not others. When people were no longer allowed to keep hand guns in their own homes over here and the amnesty was called - it was nation wide. We were all in it together. I'm not saying that America could or even should give up its guns tomorrow - it wouldn't work. Attitudes would need to be different first. I think you're attitudes towards guns are skewed, and I don't think the arguments for having guns are good - or even rational - but there you go.

So, basically, we took one thing away and the opposite happened. But in Minneapolis, gun crimes fell dramatically when the state passed a conceal-carry law several years ago. Same thing happened in Dallas, Texas. Gun crime fell. Did it disappear? Nope.

Just sayin'.

See above. Need sleep...can't go to bed, must...finish...organising...anniversary present...ZzzzZZZzzzz....

by **TexasBlue** Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:11 pm

BecMacFeegle wrote:It's the same here. But I would assume that most crime is centred on inner cities. More people, more crime. Doesn't mean it isn't also a problem else where, you just get less of it. Considerably less of it in the case of gun crime over here.

Well, sure, that's in America. Here when we took away guns, it fell. The difference is I suppose that in America it seems the majority of you are in favour of keeping guns - I assume, please correct me if I'm wrong. I happen to think that your reasoning for wanting guns is faulty - and that's where I'm arguing from. In the UK, the majority of people don't like them, don't want them, and feel happier and safer without them. The other factor is that I can't see how on earth you could try and take away guns in specific areas and not others. When people were no longer allowed to keep hand guns in their own homes over here and the amnesty was called - it was nation wide. We were all in it together. I'm not saying that America could or even should give up its guns tomorrow - it wouldn't work. Attitudes would need to be different first. I think you're attitudes towards guns are skewed, and I don't think the arguments for having guns are good - or even rational - but there you go.

See above. Need sleep...can't go to bed, must...finish...organising...anniversary present...ZzzzZZZzzzz....

I think you hit upon the whole thing, Bec. It's that a majority of people like their guns and don't want to give them up. Also, our media likes to paint it as if liberals (the left) don't like their guns. That's BS. I haven't met one yet that doesn't enjoy their guns for whatever they do (or don't do) with them. Over here, it's the far left that hates the guns.

As far as our inner cities go, it usually the minority areas that are more infected with the crime. I'm sure its that way in all major cities across the globe. Of course, having just said that, i'm sure that's interpreted as a racial statement by some. Not the case. Just fact.

No, no, no! No sleep for you!

by dblboggie Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:28 pm

BecMacFeegle wrote:
I am not trying to pull you into a discussion of anything. I did not originate this offshoot (pardon the pun) of the topic. It was your remark on the civilian possession of firearms that I was responding to. And I have no idea why you would think that I am “trying to hide behind” our constitution. I am hiding nothing.

Good, then we can discuss gun laws point by point, instead of returning to what the constitution says every time a point is raised.

How can we discuss gun laws in isolation of the actual law? We have a supreme law of the land. One of those laws IS a “gun law” and it is quite clear as to what that “law” has to say on the subject.

Of course American’s are residents of Earth, and we are human beings subject to human nature, what is your point? That we should homogenize our laws with the rest of the world?

That by having a constitution doesn't mean that you can refer to the constitution every time you have a point to make about gun laws.[/quote]

Again, see above. How do you propose we discuss gun laws in isolation of those laws?

BecMacFeegle wrote:If I say: if even trained soldiers can make mistakes in stressful situations, then why should civilians be trusted to have them in there homes? And you respond with: well under our constitution...then we can't have a conversation about 'guns' and how people behave with a gun in their hand. We can only have a conversation about what is constitutional and what isn't. Well, your constitution has zero impact on me, my life, my opinions or even human nature and universal truth. There are universal truths, and the American constitution - however you might feel about its sanctity, does not provide some sort of buffer which overrides those universal truths.

In point of fact, it is because of those universal truths that the framers of the constitution ensured that certain rights would be included in that document.

One of those universal truths is the quote in my signature below. It is also the reason for our Second Amendment.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
I don’t know about the thinking of the average citizen in the U.K., but here we trust our civilians with “guns” because it is the LAW!

What does that mean? You might allow them to have guns, but you can't trust their behaviour with those guns, you can't place any trust in how they will choose to use those guns because you have a law that tells you they can have them. The law doesn't magically make them sensible, trustworthy or even mentally fit to have a gun. I wouldn't trust most of the people on this planet with a gun in their hands, and a constitution wouldn't change that.

By your logic, the streets in most of America should be running red with blood, way beyond the level that it actually is. In fact, the only places in America that violence is a real problem are the very places where honest citizens are barred from gun ownership. There are well north of 6 million persons with concealed carry permits (means one can actually carry a firearm on their person), and countless millions more legal gun owners. We are, in fact, awash in guns legally owned by law abiding citizens. If it is as you say, and we cannot trust those citizens to continue abiding by the law once in possession of a firearm, why is America not in the death throes of a mighty upheaval of lawlessness and murder? I don’t understand your thinking here, as it is so clearly not supported by the actual facts on the ground. I walk around with a firearm on my belt, I go to the store, out on errands, at all times armed. I know other people who do as well. I don’t feel the least bit threatened by these people, nor they by me. It’s like having a jack in the trunk of one’s car here. And despite all of these armed citizens going about their daily lives, there are no outbreaks of the wild-wild-West here; no gunfights in the streets at high-noon, no shootouts at the local watering hole over a game of cards. It would seem this trust we place in these law-abiding citizens to do the right thing with their constitutional right to keep and bear arms has been well justified, as it has been throughout our history. You could say we have a well documented historical record showing that the vast majority of law abiding citizens will do the right thing and be responsible gun owners.

Do we have a criminal element that is not so inclined? Of course we do, every nation does. Do the bad deeds of that criminal element here justify the suppression of law abiding citizen’s rights to keep and bear arms? I would submit that such a move would do nothing to ameliorate those bad deeds, as has been amply proven in our major cities.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
We Yanks are really sticklers on that “rule of law” thing, particularly when it comes to our Bill of Rights. This is not hiding behind the constitution or anything else for that matter. Every law is always a matter of give and take. We surrender some of our autonomy for the greater good; it is always a trade off.

Well I'm sure that's fabulous for all you people who obey the law - but one of the chief reasons you and Tex keep throwing out for why you have guns is for those people who abuse those rights and use those guns to abuse others - so clearly you have a problem in America with those people who aren't willing to make that trade off and who abuse their rights.

Well the truth be told, it is as I have already stated, I have one just in case. It’s a part of being prepared for the unforeseen. And, if one makes a casual reading of our founders on the subject, it is apparent that many believed it was a “duty” of citizens to “be at all times armed.”

And like I said, where I live, I don’t even bother to lock my front door at night. And you can find many, many communities like this throughout America outside of the major urban areas. I don’t live in fear of “people who abuse those rights,” I see my status as an armed American as one of duty and prudence. It never hurts to be prepared.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
Your point seems to be that since even trained soldiers can get it wrong, then we should scrap our Bill of Rights because how on earth could we possibly trust untrained civilians with firearms?
Oh here we go again with the constitution. Do you see what I mean? I say 'guns are bad', you say 'but what about our constitution?!' I'm sorry, but your constitution doesn't change what I think and it doesn't change human nature. So what about it? If guns are bad, have one of those famous trade offs and get rid of them.

Okay, let’s try another tack. I say guns are not bad. Guns are guns; I do not anthropomorphize guns as the embodiment of all evil. A gun is a tool, like a screwdriver, a wrench, a nuclear reactor, or anything else; it is what people DO with guns that we should classify as good or bad. Defenestration was popular in parts of Renaissance Italy, should they have outlawed windows?

We cannot blame the tool for the operator’s sins. Else we would not have cars, wrenches, knives, or any other tool that mankind has employed doing evil to his fellow man.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Have baseball bats instead of guns.

Funny you should mention that, I recall a news story last year from a city very near here, two “friends” got into an argument over something, and one of them beat the other to death with... wait for it... HIS SHOE!

Should we outlaw shoes?

BecMacFeegle wrote:It does only say you have the right to bear arms, doesn't it? You don't think you have a constitutional right to nukes (also arms) so why guns? Why not knives, why not hockey sticks, hell why not a sling shot?

Again, the written record on this is quite clear and what was meant (and said) was that all citizens have a right to keep and bear those arms employed by an individual soldier of the day, which included firearms. Besides, such an alteration would pretty much defeat the whole purpose of the amendment.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
I am not buying that premise in the slightest. Our right to keep and bear arms was considered important enough by the framers to make it a right set aside and clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights.

So what? For 2,000 years people thought they shouldn't have sex with people of the same sex because the Bible said so - didn't make it right and it didn't make it true. If you can make changes - why not this one? Just because the framers thought it was right in that context, at that time - doesn't mean it is right here and now, much less universally. Things change.

Yes, things do change, but I defer to that old saw “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” As our streets are not running with blood because mere humans, subject to all the foibles of human nature, own a firearm, I see no urgent need to tamper with a law so basic.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
There is a very good reason for that that remains valid to this very day due to the very human nature that you reference.

Human nature says someone whose scared with a gun is more likely to shoot someone they see as a threat. I'd rather have a scared person without a gun.

Again, the statistics just don’t back you up on this.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
We trust civilians with guns in our country because the government has no choice in the matter! It is the LAW!

You allow citizens to have guns because it is the law, it doesn't mean they can be trusted with them.

Conversely, it does not mean that they can’t be trusted with them. This is not a proof of premise you offer, and the stats do not back you up on this. The overwhelming majority of gun owners seem to do just fine with this right and do not interpret it as a right to wreak mayhem and wantonly murder their fellow citizens.

BecMacFeegle wrote:And if enough people want a law which bans guns, I'm sure you'd get one. So long as you all want guns - that's your business. Doesn't mean I have to think it's a good idea for people to have guns and it doesn't mean I have to pretend I think a stupid reason for doing something is a good one. I don't trust the average person with that type of responsibility. End of.

The only way to get a ban on guns would be through a constitutional amendment, and even that would be folly because the only way to actually ban guns would be to destroy every single weapon on the planet, along with the means to produce them. Rather than attacking the tool, better efforts would be to attack the actual source of the problem, people.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
We trust law-abiding citizens with guns because the stats bear out that legal owners are not the one’s rampaging in the streets wantonly killing people left and right. Rather, the gun violence Europeans seem so focused on largely occurs in very specific and well defined venues and tends to skew naked stats devoid of any context upward, painting a false picture of American society as a whole outside of those specific venues. Where I live, for instance, I don’t “need” a gun and I actually go to bed each night with my windows open and my front door unlocked.

You and I first started talking about gun crime when you posted that article about the rising levels of gun crime in the UK - and tried to imply that was because we stopped the private ownership of hand guns - which just isn't true. You say you have a different culture - fine. I'm not lobbying for you to change it, if the majority of Americans want guns, what has that got to do with me? But I have yet to see a good argument for people having and keeping dangerous weapons in their home either because they want to, because it happens to be their right, or because they think it makes them feel safe in case they are attacked. I don't like guns, I don't trust people with them - and your constitution isn't going to change that. It just makes it legal for an entire nation of people to do a very dangerous thing. They are weapons. They are used to kill people - you can dress them up however you like, but underneath, they're things we use to kill other people. So what if the stats say most people are sensible with them - what about the ones who aren't? Aren't they the ones that make those law abiding citizens feel they need a gun in the first place?

It is very clear from your arguments that you will never see a legitimate reason for an average citizen to own a firearm. And I am fine with that as well. It would appear, in lieu of any evidence to the contrary, that the people of the U.K. are largely on your side on this issue; and that is fine with me as well.

And yes, they are weapons; they are designed to kill people; that is one of the functions of that tool. But cars are dangerous things too. And many, MANY, times more people die every year as a result of the irresponsible operation of motor vehicles. But we are not banning cars, are we? And I am already anticipating your response, because I know you are going to say that there are legitimate uses for cars that don’t involve killing people, to which I would say; but so many millions have died because of the automobile, surely there is a better way? If we outlawed cars we could save so very many lives. We could force everyone to take a bus, train, or bike.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
It actually proves my point, as well as Cesare's ; at least in this country. The thing this stat (if it is true – and I am not conceding that point) does not do is give any context. The areas in America that could cause a spike like that are the very areas with the strictest gun control laws in the nation. I have repeated this many times but apparently this would appear to be an inconvenient truth. Our major urban areas are the source of a majority of gun and gang violence. In these major cities, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, D.C., etc, gun laws are the most restrictive, so much so that one of these cities was dragged into court and fought all the way to the Supreme Court, and lost! D.C.’s laws were so insane that gun ownership (if one could legally acquire one) was rendered null. And yet D.C. was the murder capital of the country! Why? Because criminals could give a rat’s ass about the gun laws! So in these highly urban areas, the only people carrying firearms and the very people who SHOULD be banned from possessing them - criminals! Instead, because law-abiding citizens cannot legally possess or bear firearms, they are at the mercy of armed thugs and a wholly inadequate police force unable to be everywhere at once.

Why? You don't think it has anything to do with the ease of getting hold of a gun anywhere else in the country? You don't think it has anything to do with being part of a nation which believes it is ok to get hold of a gun if you want one?

No I do not. No matter how stringent the laws become, there will always be those who do not follow those laws. And we are not a nation that “it is ok to get hold of a gun if you want one.” This is a purposeful mischaracterization of our laws. We have laws that forbid certain persons from obtaining firearms, and no sane citizen is against those laws. But we are not a tiny island nation. We comprise a vast portion of the North American continent, and we have a population of 300+ million people. If one is determined, one can get a gun, even in those places with the strictest of gun laws.

BecMacFeegle wrote:And the argument that you should be able to arm yourself in case you are attacked by a criminal is scary. The police can't be everywhere? So that entitles you to take the law into your own hands?! That makes it ok to kill another human being? What does that really have to do with anything? And in a country where guns are comparatively common place, criminals are never going to find it that hard to get hold of guns, are they?

Actually, we have “laws” that allows us to use deadly force in the absence of law enforcement when our lives are threatened. So this is not matter of taking the law into our own hands, it is a matter of following the law.

And in a country where guns are common place, making them less so for law abiding citizens is not going to do anything to enhance our safety.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
As for the stats themselves, if their source is the U.N., all bets are off. I lost all respect for that den of thieves eons ago.

That's just ridiculous. Den of thieves?

You’re right, though not inaccurate, perhaps I should have said “den of iniquity” instead; has a classier ring to it.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
So it is America’s fault yet again? We can't catch a break from anything! What, those inner city kids don’t have parents? They are the unknowing pawns of the American gang gun culture? How would one go about solving this problem if it were indeed America’s fault? Would the U.K. have to shut down the importation of all American movie, tv, video, literature, music, gaming and internet products that in any way referenced gang gun culture? Perhaps just firewall off the U.K. from all American media products of every kind wholesale? And immediately censor any U.K. spinoffs of said American media products?

Come on. Really? That is the ONLY reason gun crime is rising in the U.K.?

Oh stop acting like America is such a victim. Yes, the rise of gun crime is down to inner city kids emulating American gang culture. Sorry, but that's the way it is. If you want to feel victimised by that fact, sorry, but that's the way it is. Does American culture have an impact on other countries? Yes. Is that your problem - well no, not really. It's ours. Do they have parents, why yes they do. Don't the ones in America? I suspect the reason gun crime is on the rise is a break down of social values in the most deprived areas - the same reason I suspect you have the same problems in America. We have problems we need to sort out. We need to stop illegal weapons getting into this country. THAT is the best way to deal with out illegal gun culture - introducing more guns so we can all arm ourselves against those 'thugs' is not the way to go. That will make the problem much, much worse.

You completely ignored my Snicker

and my “being cheeky” bit!

But since you are taking this in seriousness, I would submit our “gang gun culture” has squat to do with your urban youth’s behavior. I am quite sure there are any number of socioeconomic and societal factors local to the U.K. to account for why they would even mimic said “gang gun culture.” To blame it on America is to ignore these other factors. And as you rightly point out, there has been a disturbing break down of societal values that have been a trend for a long number of years here. And I have no problem with the U.K. cracking down on the importation of illegal weapons. I don’t know that that will ultimately help, but if it is what the people want and the law demands, then it should be done. I would hope, however, that there are other things being done to restore some sense of civil responsibility and civility with those inner city youth.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
Well I have a big problem with the thinking that says responsible, law-abiding adults are just not to be trusted under any circumstances with firearms for self protection.

Really? Well, tough. You're the one who focusses so intensely upon human nature. As far as I'm concerned it's human nature which dictates that most of us should not be trusted with a dangerous weapon which we can use with impunity.

And again, the stats do not bear you out here. We do just fine here with our gun laws and our Second Amendment, and the vast majority of the millions upon millions of gun owners in this country have consistently proven that they can be trusted “with a dangerous weapon.”

BecMacFeegle wrote:
To say that there is something seriously wrong about a person who owns a gun for protection is something I find remarkably shortsighted. I was in the Boy Scouts when I grew up – our motto was “always be prepared.”

Yes but that phrase doesn't end with 'to blow someone's head off'.

It does if circumstances warrant.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
I think this is a very laudable objective, applicable in all parts of a person’s life. Clearly we do not share this same pragmatic view. I believe that being prepared for any eventuality is a good thing. Throughout our lives we are taught to prepare for unforeseen events, such as a loss of a job (savings), auto accidents (insurance), natural disasters (emergency food, water and supplies), and all manner of events we hope will never happen, do not believe will ever befall us, but we prepare (if we are prudent) anyway. To single out home or personal defense in the form of a gun is narrow minded in my view.

Well, I see your view as narrow minded. To assume people should be entitled to have a gun 'in case the worst happens' is dangerous, to my mind. If someone bursts into your house with a gun, you also having a gun is probably the quickest way you can go to getting yourself killed.

And that is just fine. I’ve been a gun owner for years, and I carry a gun around with me all the time and I’ve yet to have a problem with it.

And if someone were to burst into my house with a gun, I’m almost certain that I would not be the victim in that scenario. Unlike the typical common criminal, I have taken my ownership very seriously and I trained very assiduously on the safe, proper and effective use of my sidearm. I practice these skills regularly. I can present from concealed carry and put two in the center of body mass in one second, or less. With a shotgun (the preferred home defense weapon as the shot covers a wider area and will not penetrate walls), it takes less time since I don’t have to aim so carefully. So I’m pretty sure my having a firearm in the house is not going to make me more likely to be killed by an armed intruder.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
And if a criminal were to break into my home and threaten my life or my families lives, and I hadn’t been prepared and did not have the means use deadly force to save their lives and that criminal killed us all, that would be an appropriate valuation of life to you? Really? You think that people who have firearms at home for protection (just in case) are just itching to “bust a cap” into some criminal? You think the mere possession of a firearm at home for protection automatically means that person seriously devalues life?!?

The assumption you are making is that the criminal would be breaking in would be willing to kill you. You make the assumption that they are armed. You make the assumption that they are a monster willing to murder you and your family.

I see, so what am I supposed to assume in your view? Am I to assume that they are illegally entering my residence to ask for a loan? Perhaps they are just “boundary-challenged” citizens looking for someone to talk to. What the feck am I supposed to do? Submit? Hope that they AREN’T one of those homicidal maniacs looking to kill for the hell of it because stealing just doesn’t cut it as a thrill anymore? Just take my chances on someone who would actually break into another’s home in the dead of night?

You are damn skippy I am going to anticipate the very worse in such a situation! What gives this intruder the right to put me in a position where I have to decide whether it is worth the loss of my life not to defend myself and submit to that intruder’s actions?

BecMacFeegle wrote:Yes, I think it is a devaluation of human life to think that you are entitled to have the means of ending one so easily to hand. I have never implied that I think they are eager to kill another human being - but to think so low of someone else's life that your first thought would be to reach for a firearm if you caught an intruder in your home, is disturbing, and yes, implies a devaluation of human life.

So, because I believe that I have a right NOT to die at the hands of an intruder, but ending that intruders life in a lawful manner, then it is I would devalue life?!?!? WHO exactly is devaluing WHOSE life in the scenario of an intruder breaking into a law-abiding citizen’s home?!?!? What sort of passive/aggressive nonsense is this?

BecMacFeegle wrote:
I would submit that they do NOT devalue life as much as they value theirs and those of their families! I would submit that the VAST majority of such people, decent, hard-working, law-abiding citizens pray they NEVER have to use their firearms in self defense or take another’s life. But they have decided to take responsibility for their safety by being a responsible gun-owner, and not just leave it to chance or the police, who are never more than 5 or 10 minutes away, more than enough time to get murdered in one’s own home and make a clean get away with some loot to boot.

Oh I see, so people who don't have guns are irresponsible and don't value they're families lives? And I am the one making generalisations? I would propose that if those people are so concerned about gun wielding maniacs that they would be lobbying to get the guns off the streets and out of people's hands. Best way to do that? Well a good first step would be to stop people thinking everyone is entitled to own a dangerous weapon and a means of killing other human beings.

I did not say that. Some people genuinely believe that it is the responsibility of law enforcement to protect them and their families. Some live in communities expressly because those communities render personal protection superfluous. Others have religious considerations about the use of deadly force. There are any number of legitimate reasons why one would not have a firearm in the home, and such is their right.

And lobbying to get guns out of law abiding citizen’s hands does nothing to disarm the criminal. Again, what you propose is a physical impossibility. For better or worse, the gun genie is long since out of the bottle, ne’r to be confined again.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
I will speak from personal experience. I lived in some truly dodgy neighborhoods when I lived in Los Angeles. In one apartment building, some thug’s pit-bull killed a cat in the hallway right outside my door, splattering it with cat guts and blood. The police were regular visitors to this small complex. I kept a gun in my apartment, and I always kept it close by, my youngest son was living with me at the time and so it wasn’t just my safety that I was responsible for. And yet for the entire time I lived there (got out as quickly as I could), I never once wished to be confronted with the choice of having to shoot an intruder, much less shoot one dead. And I would be a very, very happy person if I never, ever had to draw my firearm in self defense. Just because I’ve made the choice to be prepared, does not automatically mean I have a “serious devaluation of human life,” it simply means I value my life as much as the next person, and I will not allow it to be snuffed out by someone who DOES have a “serious devaluation of human life.”

And these people in your society who you believe value life so little, who would break into a persons home and shoot them as soon as rob them - where have they learnt to have such little respect for the lives of others? Kill or be killed? Not a great philosophy to live by if you want to foster respect and love for your fellow human beings.

As you have already pointed out, there has been a long trend in the breakdown of societal values in Western societies. This breakdown has nothing to do with guns. Guns were far more prevalent in our country long before this trend started. Hell, back in my day, kids would bring their .22 rifles to school for the marksman club. It was perfectly legal to own a fully automatic machine gun and all manner of other weapons now almost completely labeled as illegal. We didn’t think about guns in the way our current culture does. We didn’t see them as evil, we saw them as tools. Guns played no part in the outright assault on religion in this country, or on moral values or societal values (to give it a secular label). You cannot blame this breakdown in civility on guns.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
All of this is a given. Warfare has changed dramatically in the last half century and civilized nations have invested enormous sums of money into the development of weapon systems that allow them to wage war on an ever more precise level specifically to prevent collateral damage and innocent deaths. And I personally do believe that we are doing every thing we should to hold our military to account. But this is a massive organization and there will always be bad actors. They should be weeded out and held to account if they violate the law, period.

Great. Then transparency from our military is a great place to ensure they are called to account.

I would say transparency within reason. We don’t advertise troop movements for a reason. We don’t televise battles like it’s a car chase on the freeway for a reason. There is a sort of science to waging war, a part of that requires secrecy. Should Churchill have revealed that they had a working Enigma decryption device to Germans? We have to apply some reason to this transparency.

BecMacFeegle wrote:
I would not expect a denial from anyone who was not on the ground with the authors of these reports. I think to confirm or deny any of it before a thorough review would be irresponsible, official documents or not. It would not be the first time an “official” document was wrong, forged, exaggerated and so on.

We shall see - and I will wait before I start making any decisions - but none of those would constitute good reason for keeping them under wraps.

I did not mean for those reasons to be used as a justification for keeping them under wraps. But there are legitimate reasons for security and secrecy when it comes to matters of warfare and intelligence.

by Sponsored content

Wikileaks - friendly fire

Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire

Re: Wikileaks - friendly fire