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

I have to say, as a Brit, I have always been baffled why any society would happily permit ordinary citizens to carry firearms and why so many Americans seem so attached to them. Therefore, I found my opponent's contributions most enlightening, thank you, Magpie. As it happens, I was discussing this very issue with a couple of lawyers in a pub opposite The Royal Courts of Justice last night. Neither of them could conceive of a compelling reason why gun ownership should be permitted within the general populace of our own country. One explained that he had always wanted to visit the United States but had never done so for fear of being shot (which is possibly an unjustified fear) and the other reminded me of a case that came before the courts a few years ago. As I mentioned earlier in this debate, some British farmers, after thorough vetting and subject to strict conditions, may obtain a firearms licence from the police. One such farmer, Tony Martin, used his gun to shoot two teenagers who were trespassing on his property and whom he suspected had come to burgle his farmhouse. One of the youths was killed and the other was wounded. Mr. Martin claimed he was acting in self-defence but he was arrested, charged and duly convicted of murder. Passing three life sentences on the farmer, the judge said: "The law is that every citizen is entitled to use reasonable force to prevent crime. Burglary is a crime and a householder in his own home may think he is being reasonable but he may not be reasonable and that can have tragic consequences." http://www.guardian.co.uk... It appears to me that this story is pertinent to my opponent's points 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 17. If someone in their own home faces an intruder, he is entitled to protect himself, his family and his property. My opponent and I both agree that self-defence is a basic human right, not just a legal one. The question is, how one exercises that right. Firstly, the fear of being a victim of a crime does not, in itself, entitle one to take pre-emptive action against a suspected criminal – that is not self-defence. If, however, you do become a victim of crime, any action that is taken to defend oneself must be reasonable and proportionate. Let's say a couple of young walkers had strayed off the public footpath onto Tony Martin's land (which is easy done when farmers plough across them). They would be trespassing which is a crime. However, they would pose no obvious threat to the farmer or his property so if he shot and killed them, he would surely be guilty of murder. But what if these ramblers appeared in the farmyard? Clearly, they had not merely strayed from the path; they had deliberately made their way there over a large area of private land. Still, would Mr. Martin be entitled to shoot them dead? They may be burglars in disguise or they may have just come seeking permission to camp on his land or to enquire if he had any fresh eggs or vegetables for sale. I contend that if he did shoot the hikers, Mr. Martin would be guilty of murder. However, what if the two young visitors were not wearing hiking boots and carrying rucksacks but instead dressed like ordinary teenagers, perhaps wearing sneakers and hooded tops? He may be suspicious as to the motive of their visit and he may, possibly rightly, suspect that they had come to commit a crime. But that would be a matter for his own personal judgement and it would not entitle him, morally or legally, to pre-empt a crime by shooting them. To do so would be, and in Mr. Martin's case, was, considered murder. Now, to address in brief my opponent's remaining points. 1 – The Assize of Arms of 1183 was mentioned merely to put America's current gun laws in their historical context and to illustrate their archaic background. 2 – In civilised countries basic human rights are enshrined in, and protected by, law. The right to life and the right to defend oneself are both human rights. However, in the act of self-defence one human does not have the automatic right to deprive another human of their right to life. 3 – Again, this point was made to illustrate how irrelevant the existing gun laws are in modern America. 5 – Agreed, if I couldn't reason with the enraged father he could strangle me to death. However, – scenario number 5 - in a country where firearms are freely available, he would probably just bring a gun with him and shoot me. The net result is the same. (Note to self, remember to get some condoms on the way home!) 6 – The RTL may be fundamental, so is the right to have consensual sex, at the age of 18 in some countries and as young as 12 in others. These rights may be fundamental to all humans, but they have conditions attached to them. 11 & 16 – The reality is that gun crime would decrease in the US if guns were restricted. "Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to be used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense." - Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67. 17 – A murder is still a murder; nobody in the anti-gun lobby would defend the actions of a thug that beat an old lady to death with a cricket bat rather than shooting her with a gun. This final point also applies to my opponent's disabled war veteran / mindless thugs / swimming pool story. I have a couple of observations on this tragic tale, however. Given that the old soldier was outside in a wheelchair, he would unlikely to have been able to make it back into the house to fetch his gun without being intercepted by the thugs, who would have suspected he wanted to call the police. If, however, he was in the habit of carrying a loaded gun with him in his wheelchair, he would be very unlikely to shoot all the thugs without them returning fire and killing him – he still ends up dead. Also, if he had opened fire and the thugs hadn't been armed and he shot them all just for swimming in his pool, this would be murder. The correct course of action would have been to grant them permission to swim in his pool and, after a while, slip indoors, call the police and let them sort it out. Finally (phew! this was a long one…) I had no idea that gangs of crazed paedophiles overran American orphanages on such a regular basis as to require them to keep an arsenal of weapons! These mentally deranged kiddy-fiddlers must be a determined lot as I assume that they would have already got through the security fencing and overpowered the security guards and their dogs. In this case, yes, I would break open the gun cabinet and fire a warning shot, which, if they were unarmed, I'm sure they would heed.