To be against the right to possess a fire arm is to be, unwittingly, against self defense.

Brian: Thank you for this great debate. Brian's enumerated abbreviated points and my responses: 1. The right to arms originated in the Assize... 2. the right to arms for defence was drafted… 3. … it is unlikely, …American citizens need arms to fight an invading army. 4. the only reason a citizen would use a firearm: to kill or maim another civilian... 5. Say, you impregnate a girl and her father… grabs you by the throat- 6. My opponent maintains the right to bear arms as fundamental… 7. They believe they have a "fundamental right" 8. A Brit who wants to carry a gun could go to USA and shoot trespassers. 9. everybody does have the right to self-defence... proportionate to the threat. 10. True, burglars should be punished, but doesn't carry the death penalty...if it did, the judicial system must decide the offender's fate – not the victim. 11. Carrying guns just escalates violence. 12. I wasn't armed, so I couldn't defend myself but nobody was killed. They might have been if I had a gun. 13. True, these people may have been able to resist Hitler's Troopers, but the Nazi superior power would have meant that they would have been killed in their homes. not in ovens. 14. I have failed to follow ‘analogy‘. 15. … drinking-driving as well as carrying guns is legal in some countries but are not rights. 16. … if guns were restricted, shootings would decrease. 17. …in the UK, carrying a gun gets five-years in prison. My responses enumerated by point: 1. This is unrelated to the RTL and the assoc. right to defense. 2. Rights are not drafted (given). Rights are owned. Regardless of govt. you/I would still have a right to life. You confuse the constitution‘s 2nd amendment. with the right to defense. The amendment merely documents the right. 3. This is irrelevant to defense and strays from the issue. 4. As I said, a gun is for worst case scenarios. I would have been raped at age 14, had I not had and used a gun. In my 2nd situation merely having a gun was sufficient. Guns, like knives, can be used to maim and kill, but it is not fact, that this is their only use. In discouraging hostile governments. from attacking their armed neighbors and criminals from harming innocent citizens, guns actually save lives. 5. Brian omitted option-4 in his scenario. The father could have killed him. Having a gun does not require its use. His attempt at peaceful solution was good. Brian's problem is that enraged father may reject reason, in which case Brian is dead. 6. Brian is wrong on 2 counts. 1. The basic right is a RTL. 2. The higher rate of gun deaths in the U.S.A. is part of the reason that we, must be armed. 7. I don't advocate violating laws. 8. UK citizens, by law, may not carry arms. Laws are not my issue. The reason for such laws is the issue. I believe that the reason for those laws is protection of criminals. Victims do not benefit from anti self protection laws. Even is the criminal is unarmed, he still has the advantage. He selects the victim, circumstances, and venue, to favor success. So, even without a weapon he will prevail. If we arm ourselves, even those who are unarmed, benefit from others who are. The criminals don't know. 9. This is Brian's most telling response. He recognizes the right to self defense, proportional to the threat. But, we cannot know what kind of threat we must be prepared for. Carrying a snowball may discourage a child from throwing one at you, but a bouquet of flowers will do little to dissuade a thug bent on serious bodily harm. 10. This point shows their belief is that preventing the criminal from harming us, violates the criminal's civil rights. That self defense as a preemption of the law. When I confronted an intruder, who obviously by his own foul rhetoric, was there to rape me. I shot him point blank in his face. He was likely very injured. Should I be ashamed? In the second case I brandished a gun and the intruder fled, when I withdrew my gun from the drawer. In checking the bedrooms, he was probably looking for someone to rape. In both cases they made a conscious decision to enter my house. A conscious decision that the biscuit was worth the risk. 12, My opponent regards options to be negatives. This is Marxian thinking. He can't conceive of having a gun but choosing to not use it. He asserts that only not having a gun, kept him from a shootout. For those of like mind, I advise they not exercise their right arms. 13.This is, perhaps, the most poignant example of my theory. How stupid of the Jews, etc. to RESIST. Perhaps, they'd have died, but it would have been as heros instead of sheep. 14. The point of my analogy is the ridiculous notion that GUN DEATHS are more onerous than other deaths. DEATHS = DEATHS, regardless of cause. 15. Gun ownership is in itself not a FUNDAMENTAL right. The fundamental right is SELF DEFENSE being part of our RIGHT TO LIFE. The gun is a means to exercise that right. 11. & 16. This completely ignores the reality in the U.S.A. The states with the most guns per unit population , have far fewer gun deaths. The cities where guns are outlawed or extremely limited have the highest. 17. It's good that criminals go to jail in the U.K. for arming themselves - illegally. The problem is on the other side of the issue. The victim can be beaten to death in her own home, and the anti-gunners are proud of their civility. This case actually happened: An ex-marine sitting in his wheel chair - absent his legs - was enjoying a nice afternoon, basking in the sun. His home is in Wash. D.C. where gun ownership was virtually unlawful - except for criminals, of course. Three thugs decided to climb the fence and swim in his pool. When the paraplegic marine protested, the thugs decided to beat him. They then shot him and dumped him into the pool. He drowned. His brother, a writer, wrote a column deriding guns. To me this is a strange reaction. The thugs could just as well have killed him without the gun, but if the marine had had a gun the results could well have been different. Of course, the anti-gunners would have wept for the unsuccessful thugs. My final direct question to Brian: In the hypothetical situation where an orphanage, in your charge, is being attacked by crazed pedophiles, would you break open the gun vault to allow the staff to fend off the mob? Just a simple, no spin, yes or no will suffice. The answer to this question will reveal a visceral fear of guns, a bias in favor of the criminal over the victim, or an unrealistic expectation that criminals and other thugs will respond, favorably, to reason. Or, it may just prove my point that "TO BE AGAINST THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM IS TO BE UNWITTINGLY (OR CONCIOUSLY) AGAINST SELF DEFENSE! Thanks for the stimulating debate, Brian. Looking for the opportunity to do it again.