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

I believe that self defense is the most fundamental and essential right. If an individual is restrained from defending himself, his family, his community, or his country, he is left with absolutely no rights whatsoever.
Without life, there are no rights! If a compendium of rights are agreed to and protected by law, but the right to self defense is absent, then the list of rights however long and valuable in themselves are voided by the first creep that chooses to relieve you of those rights.

The right to keep and bear arms originated in the Assize of Arms of 1181 which formed part of the English Bill of Rights before being enshrined in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

http://www.constitution.org...

However, the right to bear arms for the purpose of defence was drafted in very different times when it was envisaged that a militia made up of civilians should be allowed to defend themselves and their country against attack from enemy forces.

These days, however, the United States has the most powerful armed forces in the world and it is unlikely, in the extreme, that any country would be able to overwhelm them to such an extent that ordinary American citizens would have to use small arms to fight an invading army street to street.

Therefore, in the modern context, outside the domains of sport and hunting, the only reason any private citizen would keep or carry a firearm would be to use it to kill or maim another civilian, whether it be maliciously or in self-defence.

Now, let's examine how that might work in practice.

Say, at a party, you meet a girl you have always fancied and, after a few drinks, you end up making love upstairs on top of a big pile of coats. Then, a week later, there's a knock on the door and when you open it, the girl's father is standing there red in the face, huffing and puffing because, as it turns out, you have got his daughter pregnant.

Now being a gentleman, you naturally offer to do the decent thing and pay for the abortion. However, the girl's father is a devout Catholic and does not appreciate your offer and proceeds to grab you by the throat. As it happens, though, you keep a loaded Uzi submachine gun on the table by the door.

So what happens next?

1 – You pick it up and blow your new girlfriend's dad's head into the front yard of the house opposite.

2 – You pick it up but the enraged parent wrestles it off you and uses it to redecorate the hallway with your brains.

3 – You reason with the man and eventually placate him by promising to marry his daughter. (When he's gone you can always leave your house in the hands of a real estate agent and board the next flight to Ulan Bator - that's up to you).

Of the three options, only the third would be open to a British citizen, where nobody (except some farmers) is allowed to have a gun. That is why, whereas one in every 9,750 Americans is shot dead every year, in Britain only one in every 154,000 people are killed by a gun.

http://www.gun-control-network.org...

My opponent describes the right to the right to bear arms as being of fundamental importance but this right makes an American 16 times more likely to be shot dead than a British citizen.

I therefore affirm that the right to live in a country relatively free from gun-related deaths outranks the right of a citizen to carry a firearm.

The right to keep and bear arms originated in the Assize of Arms of 1181..."
The right to defend myself by whatever means originated at the moment of my personal conception, and this is true for each individual, back to the first man and woman.
Government cannot give anyone a right.
Rights are not drafted! They are pre-existing! They are not granted, but merely recognized by a constitution.

"… the right to bear arms for the purpose of defense was drafted… when it was envisaged that a militia made up of civilians should be allowed to defend themselves and their country against attack from enemy forces."
You are confusing the text of the US Constitution with the specific issue of whether I/you have a natural right to self defense. I would have that right even if the government said that I did not. A right is endemic to the individual. Govt. can - and often does - suppress a right, but it cannot erase it.

"These days, however, the United States has the most powerful armed forces in the world and it is unlikely, in the extreme, that any country would be able to overwhelm them to such an extent that ordinary American citizens would have to use small arms to fight an invading army street to street."

Thank you for finally getting to the point of the debate. My right to self defense is not tied to any particular situation such as this one. I and I, alone, can determine when and how and in what circumstance it will become necessary to defend myself. Eliminating one potential situation from the infinite potential situations as a ‘gotcha‘ is hyperbole.

"Therefore, in the modern context, outside the domains of sport and hunting, the only reason any private citizen would keep or carry a firearm would be to use it to kill or maim another civilian, whether it be maliciously or in self-defense."
I disagree.
I have used a gun on two occasions of self defense. In the first, while at home alone (aged 14) I shot an intruder who attacked me in my house. It was a home-made muzzle loaded gun that fired a small ball bearing. He left the house screaming. He may still be running. In the second case, I merely removed my gun from my drawer and the intruder ran for his life. Don't tell him - the gun wasn't loaded.

"However, the girl's father is a devout Catholic and does not appreciate your offer and proceeds to grab you by the throat. As it happens, though, you keep a loaded Uzi submachine gun on the table by the door."
So what happens next?
1 – You pick it up and blow your new girlfriend's dad's head into the front yard of the house opposite.
2 – You pick it up but the enraged parent wrestles it off you and uses it to redecorate the hallway with your brains.

3 – You reason with the man and eventually placate him by promising to marry his daughter. (When he's gone you can always leave your house in the hands of a real estate agent and board the next flight to Ulan Bator - that's up to you)."

Or 4 - You reason with him and he takes out his knife and slices you into 42 ½ pieces.

Of the three options, only the third and FOURTH would be open to a British citizen, where nobody (except some farmers) is allowed to have a gun.

"That is why, whereas one in every 9,750 Americans is shot dead every year, in Britain only one in every 154,000 people are killed by a gun."

The difference in gun deaths is not a valid comparison, in as much as suicide rates which are similar are more often effected by other means in GB. Also, the US has a more violent population - unrelated to gun ownership - than the UK.
Hot burglaries - where the burglar knows the residents are home - is 7 times higher in the UK. The reason? There is no gun to be afraid of.

"Perhaps you are aware that:"
http://www.gun-control-network.org...

This is a rather stupid anti-gun study. To compare suicides by gun, among various states, some of which have many guns and others, only a few, is to suggest that the higher gun-suicide rate represents the fortuitous death of a person who would be alive, but for the availability of a gun. Absolute nonsense! People decide on suicide first, and then they choose the means

"My opponent describes the right to the right to bear arms as being of fundamental importance but this right makes an American 16 times more likely to be shot dead than a British citizen."
This is nonsense, the overwhelming majority of gun deaths is by gangsters who have and use guns illegally. For example, North Dakota, which has more guns than people, has less gun deaths than either Wash. D.C. or Detroit, where guns are virtually outlawed.

"I therefore affirm that the right to live in a country relatively free from gun-related deaths outranks the right of a citizen to carry a firearm."
My simile follows:
The availability of cancer surgery makes an American cancer victim thousands of times more likely to die from cancer surgery than a cancer victim in the mountains of Chile, where surgery is unavailable. I therefore affirm that the right to live in a country relatively free from cancer surgery related deaths outranks the right of a citizen to receive cancer surgery.

Hitler voiced an argument, very similar to yours. The German people tuned in their guns. Gun deaths did go down - slightly. Alas OVEN deaths went up - slightly.

My simile follows:
The availability of cancer surgery makes an American cancer victim thousands of times more likely to die from cancer surgery than a cancer victim in the mountains of Chile, where surgery is unavailable. I therefore affirm that the right to live in a country relatively free from cancer surgery related deaths outranks the right of a citizen to receive cancer surgery.

In the USA the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are the result of gang members killing each other as well as innocent civilians. The vast majority of gun owners never even fire their guns, let alone use their guns to hurt others. But you would prefer to be victimized by the gang bangers, rather than protecting yourself and others. That is sick!

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

http://www.guncite.com...

http://www.guncite.com...

Many thanks to my opponent for replying in such a comprehensive and somewhat amusing manner!

My opponent wrote: "A right is endemic to the individual. Govt. can - and often does - suppress a right, but it cannot erase it" and "I and I, alone, can determine when and how and in what circumstance it will become necessary to defend myself."

This is a classic argument put forward by gun lobbies around the world, especially in states where gun ownership is restricted. They believe they have a "fundamental right" to carry firearms for the purpose of self-defence. However, in countries where carrying guns is illegal, the majority of the population (at least if it is a democracy) do not believe that this is a fundamental right – if they did, they would vote in an administration that promised in it's manifesto to make carrying firearms legal. In a democratic society, one cannot pick and choose the laws one abides by. For example, a paedophile may believe that he has the fundamental right to have consensual sex with a fourteen year-old old girl. However, this would be illegal in the UK and the US and he would face prosecution if he were caught. He could, though, go and live in a country such as Spain where the age of consent is only thirteen and have sex with adolescent girls perfectly legally. Similarly, a British citizen who believes that carrying a gun for the purpose of self-defence is a fundamental right could go and live in the US and take pot shots at trespassers to his heart's content!

Nevertheless, everybody does, indeed, have the right to self-defence and that is enshrined in the laws of all civilised nations. However, that right is mitigated in the sense that the amount of force employed should be proportionate to the threat. My opponent gave two examples where he had used firearms to defend himself. As it turned out, no harm was done to the intruder but it could have been very different. True, burglary is a criminal offence and burglars should be punished. However burglary does not carry the death penalty, and even if it did, it would be for the judicial system to decide the offender's fate – not the victim of the crime.

Carrying guns just escalates the level of violence in society. I will give you an example of what I mean from my own personal experience. On a recent visit to the US, I was involved in an argument with a man over a girl in a beach bar. As the confrontation became more heated it became clear to me that we were not going to settle the matter amicably and I mentally prepared myself for a fistfight. However, the other bloke suddenly pulled a gun on me! As I wasn't armed, there was no way for me to defend myself and I was, therefore, obliged to forfeit my right to self-defence and the other bloke walked off with the blond stunner in question – which isn't fair, but at least nobody was killed as they may have been if I had been carrying a gun myself.

My opponent continued:

"Hitler voiced an argument, very similar to yours. The German people tu(r)ned in their guns. Gun deaths did go down - slightly. Alas OVEN deaths went up - slightly."

This is another old chestnut from the gun lobby - if Jews, gypsies and the disabled had been armed, they may have been able to resist being imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps.

True, these unfortunate people may have been able to offer some resistance to Hitler's Storm Troopers, but the Nazi paramilitary's superior firepower would have meant that the "Untermensch" would just have been killed in their homes rather than in concentration camps. The only advantage I can see to this is that the resulting saving in gas would be good for the environment!

My opponent's then wrote:

"The availability of cancer surgery makes an American cancer victim thousands of times more likely to die from cancer surgery than a cancer victim in the mountains of Chile, where surgery is unavailable. I therefore affirm that the right to live in a country relatively free from cancer surgery related deaths outranks the right of a citizen to receive cancer surgery."

Please forgive me if I have failed to follow the reasoning behind this, but I think my opponent is making the point that life is full of risks and that a cancer sufferer may die from the surgery that was intended to save his life. I suppose this is true. Similarly a cancer patient in Santiago being transferred to hospital by ambulance for surgery could be killed in a road accident en-route because the driver had spent all morning in the bar supping pipeño! That is why society has rules, such as not driving under the influence of alcohol, which we all should abide by. That said, drinking and driving is legal in some countries and so is carrying firearms for self-defence, but neither are fundamental rights.

My opponent's final argument that most gun deaths occur as the result of criminal activity and that citizens should be allowed to carry firearms to defend themselves from these villains. I do not deny for a moment that shootouts are more commonly associated with warring gangs than squabbling neighbours in leafy suburbs. However, if the availability of guns were restricted, the number of shootings would decrease. Here in the UK, anyone found carrying a gun receives a mandatory five-year prison sentence. If the gun is loaded, the sentence will be considerably higher. Even carrying a knife is illegal and is likely to land you in jail. Crime still exists, of course, and some criminals still carry weapons, but they are the hardened minority – for the average crook, the risk of being caught in possession of a firearm just isn't worth the biscuit.

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.

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.