Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

My position has always been that lethal force should be the very last resort. Attempting to avoid confrontation is the best way to avoid needing lethal force to defend oneself, as well as the safest route for the victim in 90% of cases. I never excluded lethal force entirely. I didn't specifically mention setting up an ambush at first, only adding that as we moved more into the specific scenario. If you believed that I was a strict pacifist in the beginning, then it appears we have had something of a misunderstanding. That's a bit more specific. I would say that human life has a greater value than any number of possessions, and that no degree of theft, ever, period, on its own is sufficient to justify shooting the thief. However, lethal force is justified when used to defend againt an imminent threat to oneself or others. Not a potential threat as in an unknown intruder who may or may not be armed, may or may not intend harm, and as yet has not forced a confrontation. An imminent threat is one that has presented itself, where a confrontation is actually occurring or has become obviously inevitable.I view an intruder entering the room where I am hidden as the point where the threat becomes imminent, and not acting becomes far more risky than acting. If I can see that the intruder is unarmed, I would attempt to threaten him with the gun rather than opening fire as my life would not be in imminent danger. If I am uncertain or I can see that he is armed, then I would open fire.I do not value human life as "sacred." I simply value it as significantly more than any posession or amount of money. Possessions and money can all be replaced, while a human life cannot. I do view the life of an intruder as less than the lives of the intended victims, but for such a judgment to be relevant a confrontation must occur. If confrontation can be avoided, no lives need to be lost resulting in the least amount of net harm done.Is that more clear? There is no amount. I find the very notion that a human life can be assigned a monetary value in terms of "if he steals this much, he deserves to die" to be repugnant. He certainly deserves to be punished, but on a scale proportionate to the crime committed. Death is vastly disproportionate to any amount of theft. I don't bring it up becasue we were discussing the use of lethal force, and I do not see emotional trauma as being on an even footing with death. Certainly I consider the traumatic experience and the consequences thereof as significant in terms of justice and meting out punishment, but at no point does it justify a death sentence.Why is it that for you every single thing an intruder does is somehow deserving of death? He enters the house -> kill him. He steals my TV -> kill him. He emotionally traumatized me -> kill him.I support lethal force only in the immediate defense of my life or the life of someone else against an imminent threat. Not a defense against the loss of property. Not a defense against or retibution for emotional trauma.It seems that if we were to follow your advice concerning the value of the lives of criminals, we may as well do away with prisons entirely and simply execute the lot of them.

Sorry for the out-of-order reply - I saw the second one first. Do you have anything beyond your personal conjecture as to the "Real cause" of lower crime rates?The fact is, gun control laws do not have a causal effect on crime rates. Cime rates are determined by other factors, as is shown by the wild distribution of crime rates that have absolutely no correlation statistically with gun control laws. I'm comparing gun control laws and crime statistics. If the two do not show a correlation, then they must not share a causal relationship, and crime rates must be more significantly affected by other variables. Perhaps I'm pointing out that socio-cultural factors by far outweigh the presence or absence of gun control laws as a determining factor in crime rates.In what twisted world can you honestly look at international burglary rates compared to gun control laws, see that there is no direct pattern, and conclude that they are in fact correlated and in fact share a causal relationship?How can you in one sentence claim that socio-cultural influences are a larger factor when determining burglary rates and then turn around and say that gun control laws are the real cause? It would appear that you're disregarding the fact that gun control and burglary are not statistically correlated. If other factors more significantly affect burglary rates, you cannot claim that gun control laws are in fact the dominant factor. You can't cherry-pick two countries and claim a pattern, Legend. "2" is not a statistically representative number. If we look at all countries and compare their crime statistics, we see that gun control is not even remotely the dominant factor in determining burglary rates.Let's look at some better data. Washington DC until recently had a complete handgun ban in effect, beginning in 1977, which was overturned in 2007.According to Wiki, the property crime rate (meaning burglary, among others) went up 5.6% between 2006 and 2007, when the ban was repealed. If your assertion were true, we should see a decrease in property crime as victims are more likely to be armed. Violent crime went down 6.2% over the same period, but had gone up 9.3% from '05 to '06 with no change in gun control laws.2008 data is apparently not yet available.While we need a few more years to really see whether a trend develops, preliminary data suggests that strict gun control and its repeal had a negligible effect on crime rates in DC. Unfounded assumption. We know that in 90% of cases no violence actually occurs, but we do not know whether the victim forced a confrontation or not. In a situation where an intruder is willing to harm but is not seeking to harm, forcing a confrontation increases your risk while hiding reduces it. Says you. Again you assume that "pro-active and decisive action" reduces risk, but all I see is an unfounded assumption. Most people aren't Rambo - when we start gun fights, we can get shot, too.Further, I'm not suggesting that the 10% of cases should be ignored. You are the one suggesting we should ignore 90% of cases. I've already addressed the wisest course of action - hide, but respond with force if a confrontation becomes inevitable. The ambush addresses the 10% of cases with the best possible tactical response, forcing the enemy to meet you on ground of your chooseing where you have the advantage of surprise (he doesn;t know where in teh room you are) and a chokepoint (he has to come through the one door - cover the door and you can easily strike before he can identify you as a target). That same ambush addresses the other 90% of cases (as well as the ethical dilemma of killing someone for simple theft) by not forcing a confrontation. An intruder who is seeking to do me harm is almost certainly going to be armed, for that very reason - he doesn;t want to get brained by a lamp in a struggle either. Chances are very high that an unarmed intruder is only intending to steal, not kill or injure. Further, if I am lying in ambush waiting with a gun, an unarmed intruder certainly is at a disadvantage. Ah, right - you want to shout out that you are armed. What if the intruder believes you are bluffing? What about the fact that you just completely ruined your tactical position by giving away your location, ruining the element of surprise? If the intruder intended you harm, he now knows exactly where you are, and to use caution when entering the room. Perhaps he'll have another solution to get you out of the room.None of which happens if you just lie in wait and avoid a confrontation until the intruder enters your defensive trap. That rather depends on how you attack first. My scenario of lying in ambush could certainly be called attacking first, since I'm nearly certain to get off the first shot (and do so accurately given the chokepoint). Other scenarios involve sneaking around the house attempting to "get the drop" on the criminal - and if you're seen, he can easily shoot first. You have no advantage - neither of you knows where the other is, you have equivalent cover, and if you've shouted a warning he knows you're there (and may know at least a general direction, meaning you're at a disadvantave). This is a clear increase of risk.So in 90% of cases, you've successfully reduced your risk of being stolen from by scaring off the attacker...or increased your risk as you force an unnecessary confrontation with an intruder who didn;t want to harm you but will shoot back. You may have jsut killed someone for stealing your TV.In those same 90% of cases, I've allowed my replaceable possessions to be taken, but I've avoided a confrontation and nobody gets hurt.In 10% of cases, you've sacrificed significant tactical advantages and done nothing to deter a determined attacker intent on doing you harm. You've simply entered a gun fight, or allowed the intruder to find a tactical solution to your well-advertised "ambush" (for instance, pretending to leave and hiding, waiting for you to come out of the room in his own ambush).Meanwhile, in those same 10% of cases, I have retained the tactical advantage by remaining hidden and focusing my line of fire on a chokepoint. Since the intruder does not know where I am, he does not know that the door is a killing zone, and will likely fall into the trap as he searches for me. He doesn't get to know where I am until he already has a bullet in his center of mass.I'm pretty sure that a simple tactical analysis shows that my position is vastly superior in reducing risk, as well as following my ethical code of avoiding lethal force unless absolutely necessary.

Hi Rahvin, for the record I don't own a gun and see no need to. I have had several things stolen from me, and in each case having a gun would not have prevented it, as they occurred in my absence. Back in the 70's, living in Toronto, you could walk downtown single, female, elderly, etc, etc, after dark and not fear being mugged.I was involved in a noise pollution study, and out of curiosity we tried to correlate urban noise levels with violent crime, including rapes, mugging, etc. filtering the statistics to show the same kinds of crimes in the urban areas in the US and in Canada, and places where we could find data on noise levels in the various cities.We found a straight line correlation in both the US and in Canada, but the slopes were significantly different: Canada was much flatter than the US for the same noise levels.Interestingly, what this means is that for every noise level in the study, the rate of violent crime was higher in the US than in Canada.Obviously, other factors are involved, but one that does stand out is the difference in gun control: you can't carry a gun in Canada, and if you get caught doing a crime with a gun the penalties are significantly higher (as they are in Britain, btw).Gun ownership just means that both sides can have guns and shoot each other, while strict gun control means that both sides cannot have guns.Next of course is the tautological statement of the IRA propagandists - that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Myself, I trust the legal system and the police to deal with the people with guns, because I prefer to live in a civilization that has outgrown the "eye-for-an-eye" and "preemptive strike" mentality.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi xongsmith, Curiously, a study of capuchin monkeys:
Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness, Study Says

quote:

---

Researchers studying brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) have found that the highly social, cooperative species native to South America show a sense of fairness, the first time such behavior has been documented in a species other than humans.

​

The question of whether human aversion to unfair treatment”now shown by other primates”is an evolved behavior or the result of the cultural influence of large social institutions like religion, governments, and schools, in the case of humans, has intrigued scientists in recent years.

​

The new finding suggests evolution may have something to do with it. It also highlights questions about the economic and evolutionary nature of cooperation and its relationship to a species' sense of fairness, while adding yet another chapter to our understanding of primates.

​

"It looks like this behavior is evolved . it is not simply a cultural construct. There's some good evolutionary reason why we don't like being treated unfairly," said Sarah Brosnan, lead author of the study to be published in tomorrow's issue of the science journal Nature.

---

Note that John Forbes Nash won a Nobel prize in economics for solving a part of the cooperation question:John Forbes Nash Jr. - Wikipedia
Nash equilibrium - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Nash equilibrium has been used to analyze hostile situations like war and arms races[1] (see Prisoner's dilemma), and also how conflict may be mitigated by repeated interaction (see Tit-for-tat). It has also been used to study to what extent people with different preferences can cooperate (see Battle of the sexes), and whether they will take risks to achieve a cooperative outcome (see Stag hunt). It has been used to study the adoption of technical standards, and also the occurrence of bank runs and currency crises (see Coordination game). Other applications include traffic flow (see Wardrop's principle), how to organize auctions (see Auction theory), and even penalty kicks in soccer (see Matching pennies).[2]

---

Tit for tat - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Each tit-for-tat agent scores a total of 28 points, over the six matches. Each defector scores only 26 points.

​

Despite the fact that the tit-for-tat agents never won a match and the defectors never lost a match, the tit-for-tat strategy still came out ahead, because the final score is not determined by the number of match wins, but the total points score. Simply put, the tit-for-tat agents gained more points tying with each other than they lost to the defectors.

​

The more tit-for-tat agents that there are in the described game, the more advantageous it is to use the tit-for-tat strategy.

---

It is not surprising to me that evolution has tested all the various options for "winning" the game/s of social interaction/s, and thus ending up with the optimum solution - because it has an increased survival advantage for the population.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : quote not qs

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I did try to look at two societies with similar socio-cultural characteristics but different crime rates and I put forward the hypothesis that the lower burglary rate in the US could be attributed to the greater deterrent, i.e. loose gun laws which level the playing field for home-owners and harsher sentencing for burglars, robbers and thieves. You can try to shoot it down if you like but incredulous questioning doesn't really contribute either way. That's not a fact, and you haven't shown it is. Of course I realise and accept that many other factors affect crime rates. That's why comparing countries such as Japan and even France to the UK/US is counter-productive as their 'other factors' are so numerous. I looked at two societies that share many cultural values and three things that stick out as very different is the attitude to gun ownership, stricter sentencing for criminals and the lower US burglary rate. I therefore find it quite plausible that the first two are related to the latter. My view is supported by the common-sensical axiom that a would-be burglar would be deterred by the probability of the home-owner owning a gun and being likely to use it. It's the same reasoning process that stops people from picking fights with people who are likely to hurt them. Because, unlike you, I compared countries which share many socio-cultural values. When many things are similar you can more easily distinguish the things that are different. I compared two countries which share many socio-cultural values. When many things are similar you can more easily distinguish the things that are different. If the ban was in effect for 30 years why are you cherry-picking just one year to illustrate your point? Where are the overall numbers? Until you can see the numbers before the ban, during the ban and some years after the end of the ban you can't draw any conclusions. Like you say it's too early to tell just yet and you'll also need to factor in all the other things that have changed in that period, e.g. drug usage, unemployment and poverty rates, etc. Although I can't really reject your ambush defense I still think that it isn't the best course of action for three reasons:1) Sometimes it increases risk. It can be done if you're living by yourself but with having a family and especially with the children being in separate rooms you can't just wait and hope that your wife or kids won't panic and make a noise. Even more worryingly you're giving the intruder the chance to come upstairs and put himself within harm's range of your family. Why take that risk?2) By waiting in ambush you're giving the intruder a tactical advantage. When he first enters your house he's at his most ignorant and therefore at his most vulnerable. He doesn't know the layout of the house, the lay of the land so to speak, how many people live there, where they are located, etc. The only thing he does know is his entry point, the window or door he came in from, which can be also used as his exit point. This is the time to attack him. if he's not incapacitated by the attack his first instinct would be to flee and that's bound to be through his only known route. It's all about not giving him time to think and choices to make. You give him just enough time for the adrenalin to kick in and you allow him only one choice: flee. if you wait upstairs in ambush you give him the time to assess the layout of the house, how many people live there, where they're likely to be, how wealthy they are, etc. He can then decide if he just wants to steal your TV and leave or if he'd like to torture you until you give him your credit card number and then rape your wife as he's just seen her picture in a bikini on the mantlepiece and she looks hot. Why take that risk?3) When you're in a confrontational situation time is against you. You MUST take action, fight or flight, that's what nature has programmed us for. If you just do nothing or just wait in ambush the adrenalin that's gathering inside your body will cause a build up of lactic acid on muscle tissue (since you're not using your muscles to fight nor to flee) which in turn produces a feeling of weakness and the loss of endurance capability in the muscle. In short, the more time you wait in ambush the less effective you're going to be. Why take that risk?Now the real issue is: none of the above will matter if the intruder only wants to take your TV and leave. The thing is *you don't know that*. Statistically violence against you will happen less than 10% of the time. But, like I've been saying all along you put your seatbelt on for much smaller odds than that. Why should you value your life more when you're in a car than in your own home facing a situation that you didn't initiate or cause?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

If an intruder sees a picture of MY wife in a bikini on the mantlepiece, that wouldn't be an INCENTIVE to continue the burglary, it would be a DETERRENT. (Me thinks even the intruder would favor the less harmful bullet in the chest instead.)I'm kidding, KIDDING!
(I don't really have a mantlepiece)

That's just not true! The criminal side -by definition- aren't going to abide by any gun-control legislation. That's why they're called 'criminals' in the first place.Gun controls means that the people who have a legitimate need for a gun (i.e. home owners for self-defense) aren't allowed to have one. It has absolutely no bearing on people who want a gun for illegitimate reasons. It's an old cliche but it's very true! The problem is that the legal system and the police are there to deal mostly with the after-effects of violence. When you're woken up in the middle of the night by the sound of broken glass, no legal system or police will be there to protect you. That's very noble of you. It's a shame that such sentiments don't register with the meth-addicted juvenile who's in your house about to steal your TV or worse.As for the "preemptive strike" mentality: countless states throughout the world have been applying it for centuries and still are, as the Iraq Invasion has shown. If you think civilisation has outgrown it, you'd better think again!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

You're using the American invasion of Iraq as good evidence FOR "pre-emptive strikes"???Wow. I think you may have just conceded your argument.

I'm using it as evidence that CIVILISATION HASN'T OUTGROWN THIS MENTALITY, as RAZD thinks.If you had bothered to read the whole paragraph it would have been obvious to you too.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Hmmm.But, besides civilization, it seems you are ALSO a PROPONENT of pre-emptive strikes? If so, it seems bringing up the catastrophic American invasion into Iraq is evidence AGAINST the strategy of pre-emptive strikes. A little confusing, yes?Interesting topic, though, Legend. I have no idea how I would react to a break-in (fight or flight). I can calmly agree with Rhavin now, but if the time comes and my adrenaline is pumping, . . . well, . . . let's hope I never find out.

Not confusing at all. I am a big proponent of pre-emptive strikes, though in the case of home invasion you can hardly call it pre-emptive as the intruder already has taken action against you by invading your house and you're just re-acting to it.The sad affair of the Iraq Invasion has no bearing on the value of pre-emptive strike strategy, it just shows how a pre-text for violence can be founded on false evidence and outright lies. I have experienced three burglaries in the past (one aggravated) and have closely witnessed many fights (and been involved in a couple) when I used to work behind the bar at a somewhat dodgy drinking establishment. Which is why I have a healthy dose of skepticism when people idealistically talk about minimising risk, avoiding killing people and such like. The reality is that noble emotions don't even come into play in such situations. The biological response will always prevail whether that's running, fighting or staying frozen to the spot while your bowels empty themselves.Edited by Legend, : grammar

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Hi Legend, Curiously, your opinion on the matter is incapable of changing the facts.The proportion of criminals who carry guns in Canada and in the UK is much lower than the US - not because of gun control, but because of legislation that makes it a more serious offense when conducted with an outlawed weapon, and because of a cultural bias in America for Cowboy Vigilante Justice in the Great American Way, still living in the 1800's mentality. Crime in England and Wales 2007/08

quote:

---

• Gun crime makes up a small proportion of all violent crime: 1% of violent incidents in 2006/07 used firearms, according to the British Crime Survey, and the proportion of murders involving firearms (i.e. shootings) has remained at or below 12% since 1998/99.

---

Given that the chance of having a violent crime is low, and that of those violent crimes only 1% involve guns, it seems highly ridiculous to play "cowboy vigilante" and run around with guns -- in a civilized country like the UK.My personal recollection from the previous study was that Canada was similar to the UK, but I haven't found comparable statistics to verify that, however we can do some basic comparisons. What I did find was this:Page not found – City of Toronto

quote:

---

• In both Ontario and Toronto, more people visit emergency rooms with unintentional firearm injuries - in which the person discharging the firearm does not intend to hit anyone - than with intentional injuries such as assault. This demonstrates that the public safety threat from firearms does not depend on the intent of the user, but is related to the presence of the firearm itself.10
• The presence of a firearm makes it more likely that a suicide attempt or partner violence will result in serious injury or death.

---

More harm than good: Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems.Below we have assaults, murders and murders with firearms per capita with the US, Canada and the UK extracted: Crime Statistics > Assaults (per capita) (most recent) by country

quote:

---

# 6 United States:      7.56923 per 1,000 people
# 8 United Kingdom:     7.45959 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 	        7.11834 per 1,000 people

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

---

So we have essentially the same number of assaults per person for similar cultures and legal systems, and where reporting of such crimes is likely to be comparable. Crime Statistics > Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country

quote:

---

# 24 United States:  	0.042802  per 1,000 people
# 44 Canada:  	        0.0149063 per 1,000 people
# 46 United Kingdom:  	0.0140633 per 1,000 people

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

---

So there is a cultural bias to murder in the US compared to Canada and the UK that is out of proportion with the assault per capita above. In other words in the US assaults are more likely to result in murder.
Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country

quote:

---

#  8 United States:  	0.0279271  per 1,000 people
# 20 Canada:  	        0.00502972 per 1,000 people
# 32 United Kingdom:  	0.00102579 per 1,000 people

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

---

And there is a higher cultural bias to murder with guns in the US than in Canada or the UK.The source of information for each of these sets of statistics is the same, so there is no question of not having comparable information. From these results we can compare assaults, murders and murders with guns in these countries:

• Number of assaults about the same in each country.
• Number of murders about 3 times higher in the US than in Canada and the UK.
• Number of murders by firearms about 5.5 times higher in the US than in Canada, and about 28 times higher in the US than in the UK.
• Proportion of murders committed with guns is 65% in the US, 34% in Canada and 7.3% in the UK.

Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems. Like I've said -- I have had three occasions where things have been stolen from me. The problem for you is that I would not have been able to use a gun if I had one: I wasn't there, so gun ownership would not have prevented those crimes.The problem is not the "meth-addicted juvenile" about to steal things to feed his habit - it is that the juvenile has become a meth-addict, and having guns or not having guns will not solve that problem. What it does is give gun owners a panacea to pat themselves over the head about being a good citizen able to render justice in the Great American Way rather than deal with the actual problem.Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems. Because it is "popular" therefore it is "right"? sorry that is the appeal to popularity logical fallacy. Just because Schrubbia was able to lie his way into his little private Armageddon war of choice does not mean it was right. The price paid by Iraqii civilians is still not justified, even now that we know there was no imminent threat and that the "WMD" were all lies from the administration. All that the massive application of firepower has accomplished is vast wholesale murders of innocent civilian, and even still the problems are not resolved - and will not be resolved at the point of a gun.Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems. And yet the US warmongers had a very hard time assembling the "coalition of the coerced" and find anyone willing to go along with their preemptive strike on the insubstantial (and that falsified) evidence, so yes - civilization has by and large outgrown it. Other nations have come to realize that ...... Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : last stat comparison addedEdited by RAZD, : symbols corrected

---

..ugh? I'm only stating the facts not trying to change them. Fact: Gun-control legislation only manages to disarm the law-abiding citizens, not the criminals. Fact: Despite the UK having arguably the strictest gun control laws in the world, gun crime has been steadily rising on a yearly basis.These are the facts whether you like it or not. if you think these aren't correct now is a good time to show why. I'm glad we both agree that gun controls don't work. I also agree with you that harsher sentencing for gun possession and -more importantly- the gun and gang culture explains why more US criminals carry guns than Uk/Canadian ones.So....? what is your point? Is that supposed to be consolation for when you're confronted by a gun-totting criminal in the Uk or Canada? Will the fact that it was less likely to happen make your shooting easier to accept or less painful? Nonsense. Carrying a gun is no more playing "cowboy vigilante" than wearing you car seatbelt is playing "Formula 1 racing pilot". They're both means of protecting yourself should something dreadful happen.

quote:

---

” In both Ontario and Toronto, more people visit emergency rooms with unintentional firearm injuries - in which the person discharging the firearm does not intend to hit anyone - than with intentional injuries such as assault. This demonstrates that the public safety threat from firearms does not depend on the intent of the user, but is related to the presence of the firearm itself.10
” The presence of a firearm makes it more likely that a suicide attempt or partner violence will result in serious injury or death.

---

Until you can compare these figures and odds with the odds of preventing or defending yourself with a gun against assault or robbery they don't say much to me other than that some people should be more careful. But we knew that already. Yes and yes. What's your point again? That's a nice mantra but what have you actually shown other than the US is a much more violent society? Which we knew already. You *just don't know that!* You don't know if the burglar would still have proceeded if there was a high probability of you being in the house and armed. Maybe the burglar didn't worry much about whether you'd be in or not as chances were you weren't going to be armed. You just don't know. What you do know is that most people won't pick a fight they have a good chance of losing. Any burglar thinking rationally won't burgle a house where there's a possibility of armed resistance. Yes that is the problem, but here we're talking about prevention not cure. We're talking about dealing with the symptoms not fighting the cause. We're discussing what to do when confronted by the intruder in your home, not about the ills of western society. What it does is give gun owners the safety and peace of mind that they're doing all they can to protect themselves, their family and their property. It gives them the sense of equality and fairness of playing on the same level field as the criminals. ...ugh?! who said that? I just showed you that pre-emptive strikes are still popular, despite what you claimed. I never said that they are 'right' because they are popular. I'd guess you must have read some other poster's post. Yet here we have the most advanced nation on the planet applying a pre-emptive strike with the direct participation of another G8 nation and the implicit approval of countless others. So, no, I don't think that civilisation has outgrown pre-emptive strikes, regardless of how hard it was to assemble the coallition. That's very wise. Next time you find an armed intruder in your house make sure to mention it to him.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I'm sorry, I can't follow your logic.You agree that America is a much more violent society than Canada or the UK. Yet you say it is ok for a much more violent society to have easy access to guns? Wouldn't it be better to take away guns from a violent society?

---

I hunt for the truth

In an idealistic scenario where all guns are instantly removed from the land, then you would arguably have a point.The reality is that guns can never just disappear. Criminals will continue to use them regardless of any laws and legislation. All gun controls do is tilt the playing field in the favour of the criminals. I support levelling the playing field so that criminals and home-owners alike have equal access to the same tools.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"