Wikileaks - friendly fire

I am only going to pick on the key points here, I don't want to interrupt or takeover the conversation.

dblboggie wrote: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.

What I guess she is saying is that though you have a right to own a gun, that is not good reason why everybody should have one or why they should be so readily available. In the English Bill of Rights we have "the right to bear arms" too but most people here do not feel the need to have one, and certainly not to carry them around everywhere we go. We are permitted "within the confines of the law" and that means subject to stringent security checks, psychological tests and subject to owners fulfilling certain security criteria about keeping that weapon secure so that it cannot easily be stolen.

dblboggie wrote:By your logic, the streets in most of America should be running red with blood, way beyond the level that it actually is.

Look at the statistics for gun crime I posted in the other thread (that both you and Tex conveniently ceased commenting on after that), yours is way up on ours and we have more stringent gun laws than you do. This goes against what you have always insisted that more guns=less crime. Clearly it doesn't.

dblboggie wrote: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.”

That was over 200 years ago and clearly the context of the time is being lost in the modern day. Going back to the English Bill of Rights, it also gives English men "the right to bear arms". But if you look at the wording (which includes the words "Protestant men") and the context in which it was written, it was clear that people were being given the right to arm themselves becuase of the concern of Catholic conspiracy to overthrow William and Mary (possibly in view of a potential invasion from the deposed James II). That was then, this is now and today despite that we have "the right to bear arms within the boundaries of the law" most people here do not want them so readily available.

The world in which your constitution was written is a very different world from the one we have now. You still had injuns ready to burn your pioneering towns and take your children, you were still expanding into the frontiers where there was such lawlessness. That is not the case today so I see no real "need" for carry-conceal or keeping one under your bed.

dblboggie wrote: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?

That is ridiculous. None of those things are designed to kill, guns are.

dblboggie wrote: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.

Look at the statistics, clearly it is broke.

dblboggie wrote:because I know you are going to say that there are legitimate uses for cars that don’t involve killing people,

They are not intended as deadly weapons, guns are.

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

It is absurd how often you fall back to "conspiracy" in absence of an actual argument.

dblboggie wrote: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.”

Yes, socioeconomic reasons are to blame for these sink estates but at the same time if they have 50 Cent telling them that bling is the be all and end all and guns is "da only defence against da crackaz. And guns and bling gets a n***er rizpec' " they are going to listen to that. And clearly they are. These kids from Bristol, Nottingham, London and Liverpool are talking with Bronx accents. Coincidence?

dblboggie wrote:And again, the stats do not bear you out here.

But they do. Oh no hang on, that UN conspiracy.

dblboggie wrote: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.

I've used a shotgun on several occasions to shoot clay pigeons (I guess you call them skeetes) and I now do not feel I must have one in my home or carry one around with me. If I want to shoot anything, it will be those small, round porcelain disks that get fired up from a contraption on the ground.

dblboggie wrote: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.

That happens so rarely here (in fact I can't think of any instances right now of average people being broken into), and not because we all have guns under our beds. The only people likely to be broken into by armed criminals are those likely to have weapons anyway, as was the case with Tony Martin.

dblboggie wrote: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'm sure you have and as an ex serviceman I'm sure you take it doubly seriously, but can you honestly say the same of the majority of legal gun owners in your country?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I am only going to pick on the key points here, I don't want to interrupt or takeover the conversation.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote: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.

What I guess she is saying is that though you have a right to own a gun, that is not good reason why everybody should have one or why they should be so readily available.

However, I would disagree with this. There is a reason for that law, a reason every bit as valid today as it was when it was drafted. Now, I know we disagree on this point, and that you consider such an eventuality as was considered when creating the Second Amendment, could never come to pass in our modern era. I do not see it that way. Our government has already overreached their constitutionally mandated limited powers in massive ways that would shock our Founders. It would shock them because I think they never believed, with the tools they provided, that the people would allow things to go as far as they have. The founding of this country was predicated on insults to liberty and representation far slighter than those we endure today. And yet we do endure them. This is what Jefferson meant when he said "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." There is little left to check naked government expansionism. We have the ballot box, but that has proven an easy thing to thwart as the number of citizens who pay no taxes and personally benefit from government largess increases every year, and who turn out in huge numbers to elect those politicians who are only to happy to deep-six the constitution in favor of acquiring personal power. And while it looks like our government has finally gone too far and aroused the previously complacent and inactive majority, even a sweeping change of hands this November is no guarantee that this will be sustained for the length of time required to fully reverse the massive shift to the left that has occurred in the last 100+ years. But throughout all this, the Second Amendment yet hangs there, like Cicero’s Sword of Damocles, and no politician can know what act might part that fine hair. In a sense, this was true genius on our Founder’s part. While it is no guarantee that we will not meet the fate of all previous governments in history, it does serve to give some pause to those who would rush the process, allowing for less extreme corrections to emerge.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:In the English Bill of Rights we have "the right to bear arms" too but most people here do not feel the need to have one, and certainly not to carry them around everywhere we go. We are permitted "within the confines of the law" and that means subject to stringent security checks, psychological tests and subject to owners fulfilling certain security criteria about keeping that weapon secure so that it cannot easily be stolen.

I would submit that a huge number of people here feel that they do not need a gun either. But they differ from their British counterparts in that they do not believe that others should be denied that right if they so choose, and I would further say that they don’t feel threatened by law abiding citizens owning guns.

And we, too, have laws concerning who may or may not own a firearm. We don’t just pass them out indiscriminately on birth ya know...

And while some of these laws vary from state to state (as required under our constitution), there are certain things that are universally applied. Convicted felons are not allowed to own firearms of any kind. Persons with psychological conditions are not permitted to own firearms, nor are any persons convicted of spousal abuse.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:By your logic, the streets in most of America should be running red with blood, way beyond the level that it actually is.

Look at the statistics for gun crime I posted in the other thread (that both you and Tex conveniently ceased commenting on after that), yours is way up on ours and we have more stringent gun laws than you do. This goes against what you have always insisted that more guns=less crime. Clearly it doesn't.

I beg your pardon? I have addressed this repeatedly! I addressed this in this very thread. Are you not reading this as we go along? Not that I’d blame you for that, it is an awful lot of copy to wade through.

Look, that chart you reference contains no context whatsoever. Nor does it cite what definitions are used for the key categories by each of the nation’s reporting. The body compiling these figures did not go to each of the nation’s listed, do it’s own object measurements based on uniform criteria, and then compare these to all others. Rather, these are figures voluntarily submitted by those nations who even track these things, without further examination of the criteria those nations used or the completeness of their reporting. In other words, the chart is pure rubbish as a scientific tool. A child could destroy this thing.

I, and Tex, have said repeatedly that the high rates of homicide in this country originate in our major urban areas where gun laws are the very strictest. But the touting of this stat as proof that the entire nation is one of lawless gunplay is just false. We have a few, well defined geographical areas where gun crimes are a problem. America is a huge nation covering a LOT of territory, and most of that in no way resembles the urban areas where gun crime is prevalent.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote: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.”

That was over 200 years ago and clearly the context of the time is being lost in the modern day. Going back to the English Bill of Rights, it also gives English men "the right to bear arms". But if you look at the wording (which includes the words "Protestant men") and the context in which it was written, it was clear that people were being given the right to arm themselves becuase of the concern of Catholic conspiracy to overthrow William and Mary (possibly in view of a potential invasion from the deposed James II). That was then, this is now and today despite that we have "the right to bear arms within the boundaries of the law" most people here do not want them so readily available.

The world in which your constitution was written is a very different world from the one we have now. You still had injuns ready to burn your pioneering towns and take your children, you were still expanding into the frontiers where there was such lawlessness. That is not the case today so I see no real "need" for carry-conceal or keeping one under your bed.

And again, while all of this is quite true, it ignores the actual reason for the Second Amendment, which had nothing to do with “injuns” or the “lawlessness” of the frontiers (which was not nearly as lawless as one might think – this is a popular fiction). And while there may be no “need” for concealed carry, or having a gun in the home, there is also no need not to. That’s just “how we roll” here in the colonies... to each their own. We two have very different forms of government, very different histories, and certainly different cultures. If it your citizen’s wish that guns be strictly controlled as they are in the U.K., then that’s certainly fine with me. It’s not how I’d do things, but hey, I don’t live there. Who knows, if I did, I might change my mind about that, hard to say. But America is not the U.K., and the vast majority of American’s fully support their Second Amendment rights, even those who chose not to own a firearm.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote: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?

That is ridiculous. None of those things are designed to kill, guns are.

What, I’m not allowed a little rhetorical flourish now and again? Come on, I thought the defenestration bit was funny...

Look, I know none of those things were designed to kill. But that’s not the point really. Whether a thing is designed to kill or not does not mean one must kill. A gun does nothing on its own. Neither does a wrench or a baseball bat. But all, and many more things, have been used to kill. So is a gun any more “bad” because its designed function is to kill, than a wrench or bat used for the same purpose? There are people who keep a bat or similar object by their bed in case of a break in; their design facilitates their use as a deadly weapon, are bats now bad? I’m just saying that it is not the thing that is bad, rather it is the animating force behind it that does evil or not.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote: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.

Look at the statistics, clearly it is broke.

I believe this has already been addressed. In the words of the immortal Twain, “figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” The body(ies) compiling these "figures" leave a lot out of the picture.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:because I know you are going to say that there are legitimate uses for cars that don’t involve killing people,

They are not intended as deadly weapons, guns are.

And yet cars kill many more people than guns do. And now that I think about it, iatrogenic illnesses kill many, many more people every year than guns do.

Perhaps we should be giving allopathic medicine a closer look...

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

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

It is absurd how often you fall back to "conspiracy" in absence of an actual argument.

Oh really? It’s a “conspiracy” that the U.N. is a decidedly anti-American, anti-capitalist body? Damn! How did I find out about this?

Call it what you will, the U.N. is the single most corrupt collection of useless politicians and parasites the world has ever seen. There is so little that they do right that is a wonder this body still exists.

Any body that would put the likes of the Sudan, Libya and Cuba at the head of the Human Rights Commission should be ridden out of town on a rail, after being tarred and feathered. Seriously, how can anyone take this body seriously? How many brutal dictators sit in that body? WHY would they be allowed to not only sit in that body, but be given a position on, or chairmanship of, the Human Rights Commission??? How could anything possibly be more outrageous than that?

Conspiracy my ass. There is nothing at all hidden about the U.N.’s agenda.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote: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.”

Yes, socioeconomic reasons are to blame for these sink estates but at the same time if they have 50 Cent telling them that bling is the be all and end all and guns is "da only defence against da crackaz. And guns and bling gets a n***er rizpec' " they are going to listen to that. And clearly they are. These kids from Bristol, Nottingham, London and Liverpool are talking with Bronx accents. Coincidence?

Hey, I don’t approve of Fitty messages any more than the next person, and when my youngest was living with me, he didn’t listen to that crap, and I made it quite clear why. I also didn’t allow him to watch the Simpsons and other garbage that devalued civility and social values. To blame Fitty’s influence on the U.K.s children on America at large will do nothing to solve your problem. Rather than blame, I submit that personal responsibility would be a better course of action.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:And again, the stats do not bear you out here.

But they do. Oh no hang on, that UN conspiracy.

And again, to call the U.N.’s agenda a conspiracy is an abuse of the word. Ain’t a thang secret about the U.N.’s dislike of America.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote: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.

I've used a shotgun on several occasions to shoot clay pigeons (I guess you call them skeetes) and I now do not feel I must have one in my home or carry one around with me. If I want to shoot anything, it will be those small, round porcelain disks that get fired up from a contraption on the ground.

Awesome. I’ve been skeet shooting on a number of occasions. And it is of note that I’ve never killed another living thing with a firearm in my life. I don’t hunt, and I’ve never had to pull a gun on another human being (well, I kinda had to point my M16 in the direction of another human being, but that was to shoot down the target in front of him, and that was only in boot). And if all goes well, and I trust it will, I will never, ever be put in a position where I would have to take the life of another.

As a note, that underlined bit, I emphasized that because I never, ever want to shoot anything but targets and clay pigeons. Self defense is not a matter of want. In my mind, only a sadist and a criminal wants to take innocent lives.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote: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.

That happens so rarely here (in fact I can't think of any instances right now of average people being broken into), and not because we all have guns under our beds. The only people likely to be broken into by armed criminals are those likely to have weapons anyway, as was the case with Tony Martin.

It is shameful what they put that guy through; to expect one to tamely submit to repeated abuses by criminals. Where the hell were the police through these repeated robberies? What good were they to Tony?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote: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'm sure you have and as an ex serviceman I'm sure you take it doubly seriously, but can you honestly say the same of the majority of legal gun owners in your country?

Of course I can’t, but I can tell you that all of the gun owners I know have the same attitude I do toward gun ownership. And I suspect that the majority of gun owners do as well. Of course, there will be that percentage who do not, and while this may come as a shock to you, there is a significant (not large, but significant) percentage of law enforcement personnel who are inexcusably lax with their training and handling of firearms.

dblboggie wrote:
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.

Err...I wasn't aware that I ever made any point about 'gun laws', that was you. My interest is in discussing whether human beings should, theoretically or even ideally be allowed to keep guns as a matter or course, in their own homes - not whether Americans should change their laws or what your constitution has to say on the matter. That's not my interest - nor has it anything to do with my initial comment which was - if even trained soldiers can get it wrong with a gun - what does that say about the behaviour of civilians ability to make a good judgement in stressful situations. Or at least, that is how the point has evolved, the initial comment was rather throw away.

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.

Again - that's your constitution - it applies to America, not all human beings. You're being very parochial about this. I want to question an issue which concerns the whole world and human nature and you repeatedly attempt to drag it back to what the framers of your constitution thought and did. Well sorry, but I'm not willing to accept that the framers of your constitution had some sort of mystical power that made them understand human nature throughout the course of history in all places and at all times - which magically allowed them to make a one size fits all rule. They said human beings should be able to protect themselves with guns - and you support that? Fine. So argue that point on its own merits, don't keep throwing out "well the constitution says, and the framers knew this..." No. Argue the point on its own merits and stop expecting me to say "oh it's in the constitution! Oh well, that explains everything then. pardon me for breathing!" No. That's treating the constitution like a Holy book. Things change, people change, people x hundred years ago were didn't live in our world - they didn't have as much experience and knowledge as we do not.

By your logic, the streets in most of America should be running red with blood, way beyond the level that it actually is.

Rubbish. What I said doesn't imply that at all. Although I live the 'beyond the level that it actually is'. So you do accept that gun crime is a problem in your country. What I said was that having a law allowing people to do something doesn't mean that they will obey that law in the spirit it was intended. I think having a law that says 'you can all keep dangerous weapons' is stupid. That's why places where guns are so easily available have more gun crime, not less.

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.

Oh I see - you're happy to believe statistics when you say something you want them to? :p

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?

That isn't what I said. I never said a person turns into a murdering psychopath the second they get in possession of a gun. Not once. I said just because you have a law doesn't mean people will necessarily take on the responsibility that law entails. It doesn't automatically mean that that person, if they found themself in the wrong situation, would be the type of person you could trust with a firearm. Call me crazy - but barring soldiers, farmers and hunters, maybe some policeman - I don't see why ANYONE needs a gun. If no one had one - no one would be in danger. it makes me nervous if a person WANTS a gun. I wouldn't be happy living in a country where a substantial number of the population were armed. I wouldn't feel happy thinking that I needed a gun to protect myself - because I need to be prepared. No. To me, that is totally uncivilised. You're living in the 21st century, not the wild west.

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.

Jesus fsking christ, are you serious? That would terrify me! The fact that you're all so relaxed about having deadly weapons dangling off your belts is TERRIFYING.

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.

Are you seriously suggesting that no legal gun owner has ever used their weapon in the wrong way? Never killed or injured someone?

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.

Yes, and because of your gun culture, all of those criminals are able to get hold of guns really easily,. Because of your gun culture, no one thinks twice if they see someone carrying a gun. And yes, I would say that ANY incident where a firearm is misused would justify at least considering whether you're all entitled to have dangerous weapons. And why do you keep talking about the 'criminal element'?! No one is a criminal until they do something wrong. It only takes a second for a law abiding citizen to become a criminal. Of course - then you get to lump them in with the bad guys who might endanger your right to bear arms - but they were law abiding citizens once too.

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.

Of course you sleep with your door unlocked - you have a bloody gun! You've said so yourself right there. Here's the thing - why not lose the gun and start locking your doors instead? Maybe get a security alarm?

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?

I say guns are bad. A gun is not a screwdriver - a gun is a dangerous weapon designed to kill things - included people. I'm not anthropomorphising them as the embodiment of evil, any more than I'm anthropomorphising nuclear weapons. You could kill someone with a window, a baseball bat, a bloody envelope if you tried hard enough. Does that mean they should all be banned? Of course it bloody doesn't. But a gun is a gun. I've said repeatedly I have no problem with someone using a gun when they need it. But to have it 'just in case'?! If a person had a window for the sole purpose of throwing someone out of it if they broke in their house - I'd block up the window. What do people do with guns? They kill things with them. If those things happen to be deer or pheasants or whatever - fine. If they have them on the off chance they might need to kill a PERSON we have a problem. Killing people is always bad - even if your life is threatened it's not right, it's just necessary. But assuming the FIRST thing you do in any situation where you feel threatened is to threaten to kill that person - no.

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.

Last time I heard - cars weren't designed for mowing pedestrians down. Last time I heard, people didn't go around with wrenches on the off chance they might be confronted with another person wielding a wrench.

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?

Do you think that situation would have ended any better if they'd both be armed - or worse, maybe?

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.

So...?

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.

Well, attempting to change the law in America now would be stupid, as the majority of you want your guns. I have never suggested that you should alter your law. i think it's your attitudes that need to change :p

Interesting that so long as the streets aren't running with blood you're happy for things to stay as they are.

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

Show me. And again, it's interesting that you're happy to believe that statistics that support your own ideas, but eagerly reject the ones that disagree with yout preconceptions and desires - now that is human nature.

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.

Now you're twisting my words again. My point - once again - is that I wouldn't trust most human beings in stressful situations with a gun. It has never been that guns turn people into rampaging monsters. I'm sure most of those gun owners have - thankfully - never found themselves in a situation where there fear or anxiety or itchy trigger finger got the better of them. The ones who did are now classed as criminals - so you can apparently forget about them.

Reading through the rest of your post you seem to be arguing from the point of view that I want to change America's gun laws. I don't - like I've said, you'd all need to change your attitudes massively before you'd get to that point. I'm not willing to go into this UN...err...stuff *cough*nonsense*cough* here, if you want to start another thread on that, maybe we can discuss it there. If I've missed anything else you want me to comment on, draw my attention to it and I will. When someone puts a lot of time and effort into a post I like to give the same back - but really I think going point by point for the rest of it will mean I'm going back over a lot of ground. And you're into it with Matt now too.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Jesus fsking christ, are you serious? That would terrify me! The fact that you're all so relaxed about having deadly weapons dangling off your belts is TERRIFYING.

I don't own a handgun personally. I've fired them numerous times though (and accurately ). But if i was to go into any store and there was one or two or three people with handguns on their person, i wouldn't bat an eye.

TexasBlue wrote:



I don't own a handgun personally. I've fired them numerous times though (and accurately ). But if i was to go into any store and there was one or two or three people with handguns on their person, i wouldn't bat an eye.

I don't even know when I'm being funny now. You don't carry a handgun, huh? Isn't that against your constitutional duty
If I went into a store and there were people with handguns I would do this:

BecMacFeegle wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:



I don't own a handgun personally. I've fired them numerous times though (and accurately ). But if i was to go into any store and there was one or two or three people with handguns on their person, i wouldn't bat an eye.

I don't even know when I'm being funny now. You don't carry a handgun, huh? Isn't that against your constitutional duty
If I went into a store and there were people with handguns I would do this:

You weren't being funny, per se. I was laughing at your statement. Not to pick on you but just because I thought it was a funny reaction.

It's not anyone "constitutional" duty to carry a fire arm. back at ya.

But truth be know, i was going to buy one in the near future back before i lost my job. But since i haven't yet found full time work, i can't get one. Oh, i suppose i could. I could just go to any seedy neighborhood in Minneapolis and come home with one within the next 6 hours. But that would be an illegal gun purchase.

You weren't being funny, per se. I was laughing at your statement. Not to pick on you but just because I thought it was a funny reaction.

It's not anyone "constitutional" duty to carry a fire arm. back at ya.

I know Tex, I was being cheeky.

But truth be know, i was going to buy one in the near future back before i lost my job. But since i haven't yet found full time work, i can't get one. Oh, i suppose i could. I could just go to any seedy neighborhood in Minneapolis and come home with one within the next 6 hours. But that would be an illegal gun purchase.

Bad! If you buy one illegally you will be one of those evil types who can't be trusted with a gun and you're bound to shoot someone in the head.

Please note: I am being cheeky again, as I suspect, were you

BecMacFeegle wrote:I know Tex, I was being cheeky.

Cheeky. That's another UK word i like that we don't use. Kinda like rubbish. Over here, rubbish is trash (as it is in the UK i'm sure) but used only in that regard.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Bad! If you buy one illegally you will be one of those evil types who can't be trusted with a gun and you're bound to shoot someone in the head.

Please note: I am being cheeky again, as I suspect, were you

Yep, i'd be one of those nasty people that gets written about in the daily news.

Okay Bec... I'm gonna borrow a page from your game plan and take this a bit at a time. I feel like I've been doing nothing but typing all day long...

I am going to take the first two points and address them here, and follow up with the others on Monday night (if I have the energy after school), or Tuesday.

But I think the second point here is actually one you've been trying to pry out of me sans constitutional reference, so that is the one I have spent most of my time on here.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

dblboggie wrote: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.

Err...I wasn't aware that I ever made any point about 'gun laws', that was you.

This is what that was a response to:

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

That’s comment by you that I was responding to.

BecMacFeegle wrote:My interest is in discussing whether human beings should, theoretically or even ideally be allowed to keep guns as a matter or course, in their own homes - not whether Americans should change their laws or what your constitution has to say on the matter. That's not my interest - nor has it anything to do with my initial comment which was - if even trained soldiers can get it wrong with a gun - what does that say about the behaviour of civilians ability to make a good judgement in stressful situations. Or at least, that is how the point has evolved, the initial comment was rather throw away.

Okay, let’s discuss that then. I personally believe that human beings should be allowed to keep guns as a matter of course. Now, why do I feel that way, is going to be your next question. My answer has to do with my own philosophy on personal responsibility. I’d like to think that I should be allowed to be responsible for my own condition in life, and determine my own outcomes, independent of a total reliance on others. Yes, I know that no man is an island, and that there are things that we do or contribute to as a collective in the interests of the greater good of all. But those are the large things – national infrastructure, defense, intelligence, law enforcement, the courts, foreign affairs and the like. Beyond those big picture items, I believe I should be willing and able to shoulder the responsibility for my life. That means that if a criminal were to break into my home, I should have the ability exercise my responsibility for personal defense, and not have to rely on a government that cannot possibly protect me in my home. Or if I have occasion to do business in a particularly dodgy neighborhood, in which a large cash transaction is going to take place (this happens more than you know – not with me, but others), I should have that same ability to ensure my own safety. I also believe that I am not the only one who should have these rights and that free peoples anywhere should be afforded these rights, if it is their desire. Now then, if there were not laws that allowed for this in this country, I would be out front lobbying for them. The fact is, prohibiting gun ownership by law, only disarms those who are law abiding.

As for the “trained soldier,” it so happens I know a little about that. That trained soldiers can get it wrong is of absolutely no surprise to me. I was a trained soldier myself once (it was a really, really long time ago... flintlocks and all that). I know what training they get (my youngest son went through boot camp just a few years ago, as did both of my nephews, so I’m up on the current stuff). We are talking about 2 and a half months of training, a large part of which is spent learning how to march in a straight line, use all the gear one must carry in the field, and endure the masochistic impulses of drill instructors on the exercise field and obstacle course. Oh, and some of that time, precious little compared to everything else, is spent learning how to disassemble, reassemble, clean, care for, and safely comport yourself with your weapon. Then you get to spend a little bit of time actually shooting the thing (ammo is very expensive) to qualify on that weapon (this is where you earn you marksman badge – or not), and finally, you get one run-through on the “live fire range” where you simulate a combat scenario wherein you execute a “bound and cover” drill with live ammunition. There are other miscellaneous items, how to throw a grenade, hand-to-hand combat, use of a bayonet, night maneuvers and so on; and it is worth noting that none of this training even remotely resembles a real combat zone, not even close. That’s it. There’s your “trained soldier.” So, am I surprised that there are “friendly fire” incidents in a combat zone as chaotic as those found in Iraq or Afghanistan, where anyone at all could be the enemy? Of course not. I’m surprised there aren’t more incidents of friendly fire; clearly a tribute to the squad and platoon leaders with real experience.

Now then, let’s discuss the average civilian. Let’s talk first about how these average citizens have used their firearms for personal defense. In a 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found: 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"; 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim." [Ref: Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Expanded Edition). James D. Wright and Peter D. Rossi. Aldine De Gruyter, 1986 (Expanded edition published in 1994).]

It would seem that the armed civilian is not quite as incompetent as you suppose, even when scared or under a stressful situation.

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year. [Ref: "Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994." By Robin M. Ikeda and others. Violence and Victims, Winter 1997. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354]

According to the CDC, there were about 18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit during 2001 (the earliest year such data is available from the CDC). This is roughly 27 times lower than the CDC's 1994 estimate for the number of times Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes. [CDC's "Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System" (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/)]

So, it would seem that these “untrained civilians” are not just wantonly shooting and/or killing each and every intruder they encounter and are instead maintaining their cool and using their firearms to threaten and frighten intruders more than anything else. I would say this speaks quite highly of their behavior and their “ability to make a good judgement in stressful situations.”

More will follow, but I think this is a good start. I honestly hope I have at last been responsive to your questions.

Ok first of all, let's get this out of the way:

That’s comment by you that I was responding to.

I should have said gun culture in the first instance, not 'law'. My bad.

dblboggie wrote:...I believe I should be willing and able to shoulder the responsibility for my life. That means that if a criminal were to break into my home, I should have the ability exercise my responsibility for personal defense, and not have to rely on a government that cannot possibly protect me in my home. Or if I have occasion to do business in a particularly dodgy neighborhood, in which a large cash transaction is going to take place (this happens more than you know – not with me, but others), I should have that same ability to ensure my own safety. I also believe that I am not the only one who should have these rights and that free peoples anywhere should be afforded these rights, if it is their desire. Now then, if there were not laws that allowed for this in this country, I would be out front lobbying for them.

Responsibility for personal defence? Why does that require a gun? Why not a bolted door and windows? Why not a burglar alarm? Why do you feel the need to have a dangerous weapon? Taking responsibility for your safety in the second instance would mean not taking large sums of money into dangerous neighbourhoods. Why would any 'law abiding' citizen be doing that in the first place?

What you're really talking about is taking the law into your own hands. Your government and the police should be able to protect you with out you feeling the need to keep a dangerous weapon in your home. No one should feel they have to do that in order to feel responsible. Being responsible means doing everything you can to ensure your safety - excluding keeping a means for threatening the lives of others.

dblboggie wrote:The fact is, prohibiting gun ownership by law, only disarms those who are law abiding.

That depends entirely upon the ability of the police to keep guns out of the country. In the UK, most people wouldn't know where to get a gun from - even the majority of criminals. If guns aren't readily available, people can't get them - only well connected criminals can. And seriously - why would that type of criminal be bursting into your home? I have never in my life been afraid that an armed criminal would enter my home, and my having a gun would make me feel less not more safe. I have locks and bolts, I have a security system, the police are a phone call away. Criminals are the concern of the police, it would be irresponsible for me to put my life at risk by attempting to tackle an intruder - armed or otherwise. I have no desire to take the law into my own hands - and arming myself, having the means to easily kill another person at my finger tips, is one way of doing that. No single individual should have the right to take the life of another, that applies to law abiding citizens as well as criminals. If someone were trying to kill me, would I be right to defend myself? of course! But no one is going to try and kill me, and if someone were, the chances of them having a gun are inestimably small. Guns change things, like it or not. If someone armed wanted to kill me - and we were both armed, at least one of us is going to die - and in all honesty, it would probably be me. A gun is a means of killing someone instantaneously - without struggle. If you take guns out of the equation then things change. Statistically, I'm far more likely to survive an attack by any other weapon than a gun. But above and beyond that I have the responsibility to ensure that I don't place myself in danger - and owning a gun would make me more of a target, not less of one.

dblbogie wrote:As for the “trained soldier,” it so happens I know a little about that. That trained soldiers can get it wrong is of absolutely no surprise to me. I was a trained soldier myself once (it was a really, really long time ago... flintlocks and all that). I know what training they get (my youngest son went through boot camp just a few years ago, as did both of my nephews, so I’m up on the current stuff). We are talking about 2 and a half months of training, a large part of which is spent learning how to march in a straight line, use all the gear one must carry in the field, and endure the masochistic impulses of drill instructors on the exercise field and obstacle course. Oh, and some of that time, precious little compared to everything else, is spent learning how to disassemble, reassemble, clean, care for, and safely comport yourself with your weapon. Then you get to spend a little bit of time actually shooting the thing (ammo is very expensive) to qualify on that weapon (this is where you earn you marksman badge – or not), and finally, you get one run-through on the “live fire range” where you simulate a combat scenario wherein you execute a “bound and cover” drill with live ammunition. There are other miscellaneous items, how to throw a grenade, hand-to-hand combat, use of a bayonet, night maneuvers and so on; and it is worth noting that none of this training even remotely resembles a real combat zone, not even close. That’s it. There’s your “trained soldier.” So, am I surprised that there are “friendly fire” incidents in a combat zone as chaotic as those found in Iraq or Afghanistan, where anyone at all could be the enemy? Of course not. I’m surprised there aren’t more incidents of friendly fire; clearly a tribute to the squad and platoon leaders with real experience.

Funnily enough, I'm pretty up on the training soldiers go through too I had several friends in the Officer training cadets whilst I was at uni - one of whom has just finished at Sandhurst - and Matt works for an army contractors, who are responsible for booking ranges for military practice. My dad was in the army, and I live in the heart of army territory - the town next to the village I live in grew up as an offshoot of the camp. So I have a fair idea of what British military training involves. And no, as I've said several times, I don't blame soldiers for friendly fire incidents - but that doesn't mean we can't learn from the mistakes that do happen.

dblboggie wrote:Now then, let’s discuss the average civilian. Let’s talk first about how these average citizens have used their firearms for personal defense. In a 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found: 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"; 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim." [Ref: Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Expanded Edition). James D. Wright and Peter D. Rossi. Aldine De Gruyter, 1986 (Expanded edition published in 1994).]

It would seem that the armed civilian is not quite as incompetent as you suppose, even when scared or under a stressful situation.

Really? is that what those statistics are supposed to tell me? So 74% of criminals surveyed have at some point been scared off/wounded/captured/shot at by people waving a gun around, and I'm meant to assume therefore that most people are to be trusted with a firearm?!

dblboggie wrote:A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year. [Ref: "Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994." By Robin M. Ikeda and others. Violence and Victims, Winter 1997. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354]

I never doubted that guns are an excellent way of scaring criminals off - that does not constitute justification for owning one, much less keeping it for that purpose. Lock your doors, buy a bloody burglar alarm and stop shooting at people!

According to the CDC, there were about 18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit during 2001 (the earliest year such data is available from the CDC). This is roughly 27 times lower than the CDC's 1994 estimate for the number of times Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes. [CDC's "Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System" (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/)]

Oh, only 18,498 gun related accidents/deaths? That's ok then!!!

So, it would seem that these “untrained civilians” are not just wantonly shooting and/or killing each and every intruder they encounter and are instead maintaining their cool and using their firearms to threaten and frighten intruders more than anything else. I would say this speaks quite highly of their behavior and their “ability to make a good judgement in stressful situations.”

Frankly, having seen those statistics I'm even more convinced that people shouldn't be allowed to have guns in their homes. That's ridiculous. 18,498 gun related accidents and deaths?! Using firearms to frighten off intruders? Really?! You don't think there are better, less dangerous, ways of ensuring your safety?!

More will follow, but I think this is a good start. I honestly hope I have at last been responsive to your questions.

Well, yes you've put a lot into that response and I thank you - it's certainly been...enlightening.

To be fair, I do understand your position - kinda. At least I understand it better than I did before...I think. We aren't going to see eye to eye on this one. Ever.I understand you live in a very different culture to mine, but frankly, the idea that you need guns is just so crazy to me.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Ok first of all, let's get this out of the way:

That’s comment by you that I was responding to.

I should have said gun culture in the first instance, not 'law'. My bad.

Ah, okay... that makes sense. No worries.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

dblboggie wrote:...I believe I should be willing and able to shoulder the responsibility for my life. That means that if a criminal were to break into my home, I should have the ability exercise my responsibility for personal defense, and not have to rely on a government that cannot possibly protect me in my home. Or if I have occasion to do business in a particularly dodgy neighborhood, in which a large cash transaction is going to take place (this happens more than you know – not with me, but others), I should have that same ability to ensure my own safety. I also believe that I am not the only one who should have these rights and that free peoples anywhere should be afforded these rights, if it is their desire. Now then, if there were not laws that allowed for this in this country, I would be out front lobbying for them.

Responsibility for personal defence? Why does that require a gun? Why not a bolted door and windows? Why not a burglar alarm? Why do you feel the need to have a dangerous weapon? Taking responsibility for your safety in the second instance would mean not taking large sums of money into dangerous neighbourhoods. Why would any 'law abiding' citizen be doing that in the first place?

What you're really talking about is taking the law into your own hands. Your government and the police should be able to protect you with out you feeling the need to keep a dangerous weapon in your home. No one should feel they have to do that in order to feel responsible. Being responsible means doing everything you can to ensure your safety - excluding keeping a means for threatening the lives of others.

A bolted door or window can defeated, as can an alarm – it happens all the time. Again, it is just a matter of being prepared. Of course, there is another reason for a gun, but I said I’d keep the law out of this – but you should know that that other reason is the primary reason I own one.

And there is no way our police can protect us against a homicidal home intruder. It just cannot be done. It takes a split second for an intruder to end an innocent life. If you are really lucky, the police are maybe 5 minutes from getting to you once a 911 call is made (if 911 is not busy – which it can be), 5 minutes is an eternity. More often, depending on where you live, the police are much more than 5 minutes away. If I were to place a 911 call about an armed intruder where I lived in Los Angeles, I could expect the police to maybe be there within 10 minutes, and very possibly more (depending on what time the call was placed and the day of the week). There is just no possible way the police can keep you safe in your home, not even remotely. It is a simple physical impossibility.

As for “taking the law into your own hands;” in point of fact, it IS the law that one is allowed to use deadly force in their own home if they are in fear of death or serious bodily harm. So using a firearm to shoot an armed intruder, no matter what that intruder is armed with, would not a matter of “taking the law into my own hands” but actually applying the law.

All of this is just a matter of calculations. You can bolt your doors and windows, set the alarm. And that may be all you need. Hell, most people will never experience a break-in while they are home for that matter. But what if? What if you are unfortunate enough to “win” that lottery, and despite your best efforts to secure your home, you find yourself faced with an armed intruder? Now what do you do? Do you just hope and pray that all this intruder wants is your stuff, and isn’t high on drugs and looking for an excuse to use that weapon? That might be a reasonable risk to take if one is home alone, but what if there is a spouse and even children? How does that affect the equation? This is where my years in the Boy Scouts and the Army, come into play for me. It is simple really, it is better to have a gun and never “need” it, than to “need” a gun, and not have one. That’s all there is to it actually. Just because I have a gun does not mean that I have some deep-seated desire to take another’s life, quite the contrary. I would do everything in my power to avoid having to take another’s life in a break-in scenario. I am not an animal. In fact, my training for my concealed-carry license actually emphasized this philosophy. It stressed the importance of doing every thing humanly possible to avoid having to take another’s life.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

dblboggie wrote:The fact is, prohibiting gun ownership by law, only disarms those who are law abiding.

That depends entirely upon the ability of the police to keep guns out of the country. In the UK, most people wouldn't know where to get a gun from - even the majority of criminals. If guns aren't readily available, people can't get them - only well connected criminals can. And seriously - why would that type of criminal be bursting into your home? I have never in my life been afraid that an armed criminal would enter my home, and my having a gun would make me feel less not more safe. I have locks and bolts, I have a security system, the police are a phone call away. Criminals are the concern of the police, it would be irresponsible for me to put my life at risk by attempting to tackle an intruder - armed or otherwise. I have no desire to take the law into my own hands - and arming myself, having the means to easily kill another person at my finger tips, is one way of doing that. No single individual should have the right to take the life of another, that applies to law abiding citizens as well as criminals. If someone were trying to kill me, would I be right to defend myself? of course! But no one is going to try and kill me, and if someone were, the chances of them having a gun are inestimably small. Guns change things, like it or not. If someone armed wanted to kill me - and we were both armed, at least one of us is going to die - and in all honesty, it would probably be me. A gun is a means of killing someone instantaneously - without struggle. If you take guns out of the equation then things change. Statistically, I'm far more likely to survive an attack by any other weapon than a gun. But above and beyond that I have the responsibility to ensure that I don't place myself in danger - and owning a gun would make me more of a target, not less of one.

See above, I believe I have addressed this. However, there a couple of points here that I haven’t covered above; those are the underlined and italicized bits above.

You say that no single individual should have the right to take the life of another, so what is the status of a police officer shooting an armed assailant threatening that police officer, or others in his vicinity? Is not the police officer a “single individual” taking the life of another? How do you reconcile this?

And why should only the police bear the weight of having to take another’s life? So you do not have to face that burden yourself? If I am willing to put another in the position of protecting my life, by taking the life of another, and put them through the pain that must come from such an act, what does it say about me that I would not being willing to assume responsibility for the safety of my own life? Now I know that you do not see it that way, and while I don’t understand that, I am quite fine with it. But this is the way that I see it. I guess it’s a cultural thing, or artifacts of my age and upbringing.

As for the italicized bit, there is no way that you can possibly ensure that you will never be in danger by an armed person. You could do all the right things, avoid the dodgy places around you (if possible, who knows, perhaps you have business there), always walk in pairs or more, stay off the streets at night, avoid places without crowds, and all the other things that experts recommend to ensure personal safety, and still you could fall victim to a criminal. Yes, you still have that responsibility to do what you can, and take those same precautions when needed. Thankfully, I live in a rural area where violent crime is more or less non-existent – it’s like I live in Mayberry. But when I lived in Los Angeles, I always bolted the doors and windows. I never visited the dodgy areas of town unless absolutely necessary, I did all the things the experts said, and I was still once mugged on a busy major thoroughfare in broad daylight by lawless thugs with a baseball bat. Thankfully, I was able to duck just in time and avoided having my head bashed in and got struck on the back of my neck and back between the shoulder blades. Had I been armed, would I have shot the perpetrator? Not a chance. That would have been enormously irresponsible on a busy city street. I might have pulled the weapon to scare them off, but had that not worked, I would have done what I did not having the option of a gun, what I did was to run directly into the traffic on that busy street (not safe either, but my chances were better with the traffic, than 3 guys with baseball bats) to avoid the gang, and made my way into the nearest store to call the police... who showed up a miraculous 6 minutes later.

So I did everything within my power to be responsible for my own safety, and yet I was attacked. And had my radar not been up (situational awareness), I would not have had the signal needed to duck when that bat was swung and I could have been killed or suffered a serious head trauma and brain damage.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

dblbogie wrote:As for the “trained soldier,” it so happens I know a little about that. That trained soldiers can get it wrong is of absolutely no surprise to me. I was a trained soldier myself once (it was a really, really long time ago... flintlocks and all that). I know what training they get (my youngest son went through boot camp just a few years ago, as did both of my nephews, so I’m up on the current stuff). We are talking about 2 and a half months of training, a large part of which is spent learning how to march in a straight line, use all the gear one must carry in the field, and endure the masochistic impulses of drill instructors on the exercise field and obstacle course. Oh, and some of that time, precious little compared to everything else, is spent learning how to disassemble, reassemble, clean, care for, and safely comport yourself with your weapon. Then you get to spend a little bit of time actually shooting the thing (ammo is very expensive) to qualify on that weapon (this is where you earn you marksman badge – or not), and finally, you get one run-through on the “live fire range” where you simulate a combat scenario wherein you execute a “bound and cover” drill with live ammunition. There are other miscellaneous items, how to throw a grenade, hand-to-hand combat, use of a bayonet, night maneuvers and so on; and it is worth noting that none of this training even remotely resembles a real combat zone, not even close. That’s it. There’s your “trained soldier.” So, am I surprised that there are “friendly fire” incidents in a combat zone as chaotic as those found in Iraq or Afghanistan, where anyone at all could be the enemy? Of course not. I’m surprised there aren’t more incidents of friendly fire; clearly a tribute to the squad and platoon leaders with real experience.

Funnily enough, I'm pretty up on the training soldiers go through too I had several friends in the Officer training cadets whilst I was at uni - one of whom has just finished at Sandhurst - and Matt works for an army contractors, who are responsible for booking ranges for military practice. My dad was in the army, and I live in the heart of army territory - the town next to the village I live in grew up as an offshoot of the camp. So I have a fair idea of what British military training involves. And no, as I've said several times, I don't blame soldiers for friendly fire incidents - but that doesn't mean we can't learn from the mistakes that do happen.

Well on this we do agree.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Now then, let’s discuss the average civilian. Let’s talk first about how these average citizens have used their firearms for personal defense. In a 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found: 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"; 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim." [Ref: Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Expanded Edition). James D. Wright and Peter D. Rossi. Aldine De Gruyter, 1986 (Expanded edition published in 1994).]

It would seem that the armed civilian is not quite as incompetent as you suppose, even when scared or under a stressful situation.

Really? is that what those statistics are supposed to tell me? So 74% of criminals surveyed have at some point been scared off/wounded/captured/shot at by people waving a gun around, and I'm meant to assume therefore that most people are to be trusted with a firearm?!

Of course you are! What is the point of having the firearm if you don’t use it when needed??? And when you say “waving a gun around” you use language that is not corroborated, is designed to create an image of a lack of control, and behavior without purpose. I would submit that they were not “waving a gun around” but rather with aiming a gun with the intent to neutralize what was perceived to be an immediate threat to their lives, and were aiming it well enough to hit what they were aiming at. And where the gun was not fired, but merely brandished to frighten the intruder off, or to capture them, where this worked it would seem to be a good thing to me.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

dblboggie wrote:A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year. [Ref: "Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994." By Robin M. Ikeda and others. Violence and Victims, Winter 1997. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354]

I never doubted that guns are an excellent way of scaring criminals off - that does not constitute justification for owning one, much less keeping it for that purpose. Lock your doors, buy a bloody burglar alarm and stop shooting at people!

See above about locking doors, etc.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

According to the CDC, there were about 18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit during 2001 (the earliest year such data is available from the CDC). This is roughly 27 times lower than the CDC's 1994 estimate for the number of times Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes. [CDC's "Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System" (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/)]

Oh, only 18,498 gun related accidents/deaths? That's ok then!!!

Out of a population of 300 million, this is a fraction of a fraction of 1%. I think that is pretty remarkable, given the number of legal firearms out there.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

So, it would seem that these “untrained civilians” are not just wantonly shooting and/or killing each and every intruder they encounter and are instead maintaining their cool and using their firearms to threaten and frighten intruders more than anything else. I would say this speaks quite highly of their behavior and their “ability to make a good judgement in stressful situations.”

Frankly, having seen those statistics I'm even more convinced that people shouldn't be allowed to have guns in their homes. That's ridiculous. 18,498 gun related accidents and deaths?! Using firearms to frighten off intruders? Really?! You don't think there are better, less dangerous, ways of ensuring your safety?!

Are we looking at the same stats? Together they show that armed citizens have not only used them responsibly to ensure their own safety, but they have also been responsible for getting criminals off the streets in many cases. It would seem to me these stats prove that an armed citizen is a good thing.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

More will follow, but I think this is a good start. I honestly hope I have at last been responsive to your questions.

Well, yes you've put a lot into that response and I thank you - it's certainly been...enlightening.

To be fair, I do understand your position - kinda. At least I understand it better than I did before...I think. We aren't going to see eye to eye on this one. Ever.I understand you live in a very different culture to mine, but frankly, the idea that you need guns is just so crazy to me.

Well, that is a lot better than I thought I’d do. I never expected that we would see eye-to-eye on the issue, but if I have been able to create a better understanding of my position on your part, then I will take that as a job well done.