20/20 on Gun Control

[ThisYouWillDo]

Nia is right: we're never going to agree: the gun advocates are too pig-headed to realise how wrong they are, and I'm too full of my own ideas to think there can possibly be another point of view with any merit. And I really do believe the gun lobby's case is wholly without merit. That doesn't stop us airing our views, and, who knows, I might just go out and buy a gun afterwards*!

Thorne also is right: I do think it is wrong to kill to protect property. In my mind, life is paramount. It is, after all, the most important thing you have, and if you lose it, you never get it back. So if you're going to take someone's life away, you need to have a very good reason, and so far, the only convincing reason I have come across is to preserve someone else's life. One human life to save another is a balanced equation. And if the survivor is the hero rather than the villain, so much the better.

What if I only believe someone is going to kill me? Is it right to shoot first and ask questions later? Well, yes, if I truly and reasonably believe that if I don't shoot now, and shoot straight, I will die, then it is right to kill another man - even if he turns out to be an unarmed passer-by who called on me to post a pamphlet inviting me to a church bazaar. (It would be hard to show that the belief was reasonable in that instance though!)

A life to protect my wife or daughter from rape? That's a hard one, and I think, despite what I say here, my instincts would be to try to save my wife or daughter. Call me a hypocrite! I would be acting criminally. I could and should expect 30 years' gaol, or execution where the death penalty applies. What would my wife or daughter think then? Maybe my lawyer could get the charge reduced to manslaughter. But the killing would still have been wrong and I should deserve to be imprisoned for a very long time.

A life to stop someone stealing my property? Utterly wrong! Again, I should face severe penalties.

I believe that most people will not kill unless they are provoked. And that those who kill without provocation are few and far between - even in the Southern States, or in the ganglands of Washington DC. Maybe they will be provoked by very little - perhaps because of their culture, or perhaps because they are in a situation where they are as scared as their potential victim. Even so, co-operation rarely amounts to provocation, and my advice is, do as you're told, and both of you will live. But if you try to kill him, remember, he's already got his gun out, loaded and ready to fire, the bastard. And where's your gun? I hope you keep it where the kids won't find it and accidentally shoot the neighbours! But that means it won't be available when you need it.

Thorne says he considers housebreaking to be sufficient provocation because he believes a forced entry into his property amounts to a serious threat to his life and safety. I think he is wrong. I imagine it is far more likey that, if he had no other escape route and he didn't attack the burglars, he and his family would be herded into one room while the rest of the house was ransacked, and, when the intruders had taken everything of value, they'd go, leaving Thorne and his family poorer but alive. But there's no point in arguing this any further.

An animal's life for the sake of a huntsman's sport? Again, totally wrong. Just as wrong as the use of the word "sport" in this context. But I've already said that, if hunting is allowed, then guns must also be permitted for hunting purposes. I've also said that it is legitimate to use guns for shooting competitions, but the guns should be kept locked safely away in the shooting club's armory.

Thorne advocates stronger gun control in USA, and I concur. But I would point out that nowhere (I think) is gun control tighter than in UK. And it doesn't work here because it's ineffecively enforced. I believe that anyone manufacturing, importing, owning or handling an unauthorised weapon should face the same penalties as for unlawful killing, because that's why they hold the guns: to kill someone. I believe authorisation should never be available as of right or on demand. You must prove you need a gun before you can have one, and you must give it up if and when that need passes. The only outlets where you can buy a gun (or ammunition) should be government controlled; and people coming into this country from any othe country where the gun laws are more lenient must expect a full body and baggage search before being allowed in.

Notwithstanding the ineffectiveness of our gun contol laws, there is no-one - ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE - calling for the right to keep arms at home or to carry them in public. We cannot see that would help at all.

Finally, a comment on the quips and slogans being used: guns don't kill - people do ... isn't that the same as keys don't lock doors, people do. In fact, keys do lock doors. That's what they are made for. And guns do kill. That's what guns are made for. Guns prevent crime ... threatening to kill a person (even just by meaningfully showing the butt of the gun to that person) is a crime itself - carrying a lethal weapon with intent, or something like that. So in those situations, crime doesn't fall, it changes. People should be trained to handle guns ... making them trained killers I don't intend to kill anyone with my gun ... that's fine if you are a hunter or a shooting hobbyist, if not, what on Earth did you buy it for?


On re-reading the above, I note an apparent inconsistency: I appear to say that anyone who acquires a gun must intend to kill, but an armed criminal is unlikely to do so unless you provoke him (making the outcome your fault). First, I do not think all gun-owners intend to kill (despite what I said earlier for emphasis and effect), but they are clearly prepared to accept the possibility. And secondly, I have to allow that an armed criminal is likely to be even more willing to kill than his innocent victim. But he is not committed to killing and I believe he will not kill if he doesn't think he has to. So, in the first instance, he creates the situation and is wholly responsible for whatever happens. But if you try to take control then you must expect him to retaliate, and the outcome then could well be your responsibility

Having said all of this, I've probably upset everyone here. I don't apologise, I feel quite strongly about this. But I shall refrain from any further posts on this board. If anyone feels it is necessary to give me a piece of their mind, that's fine. If you post here, I shan't answer. If you want me to reply, then PM me.


______________________________
* Probably to shoot myself with!