Answers to Socratic Questions
1. Do you think that subjects have a right to self defence?
This right exists already in law.
Citizens have a right to use reasonable force, for the following:
* self-defence; or
* defence of another; or
* defence of property; or
* prevention of crime; or
* lawful arrest.
2. Do you think that guns are an efficient tool of self defence?
No, I think they are an efficient means of killing another human being.
3. Do you think that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns?
No - and I will expand on this more during the debate.
4. Do you think that banning guns under the 1997 (b) Firearms amendment was a good or bad move?
A good move because the majority of the electorate supported it.
My opponent has stated that due to rising crime there is a need for citizens to have guns to protect themselves, and used
as proof that crime has risen in the last decade.
When I said I was not prepared to play ball on certain issues, I was unaware that my opponent would then drop the ball.
According to "Extent and Trends" Chapter 2 page 1, violent crime has dropped by 41% since 1995.
And lets not forget page 3:
Violent crime as measured by the BCS has fallen by 41 per cent since a peak in 1995,
representing over half a million fewer victims.
• Just under half (49%) of all violent incidents reported to the BCS did not result in any
injury to the victim. A similar proportion (50%) of all police recorded violence against the
person in 2006/07 involved no injury.
There are many other figures which totally refute the argument my opponent proposes, from his own source.
It seems that my opponent is either arrogant or incompetent and has either not bothered to read his source or did not understand it.
I leave that judgement to the readers.
I would also question his second link from the NCPA site, which states that; scholarly studies have not been able to demonstrate any effect of gun
As for using "statistics" from 1966, 1968 and 1976/77 I would suggest that the world is a vastly different place than it was 30 - 40 years ago
including much imroved policing methods.
I do not propose to waste any more of my or the readers time quoting my opponents woefully misjudged statistical analysis, instead I shall be posting
some of my own and looking at victims of guns - not just those victims injured by criminal acts, but all victims of guns.
My opponent has been very vociferous in his support of the non-existent "right" to bear arms.
During this post I will show that guns are dangerous - not just in the wrong hands, but in ANY hands.
They are, after all, a weapon made for the express purpose of firing a high velocity metallic projectile at another human being.
Here are some studies about wound ballistics
which is the study of effects on the body produced
by penetrating projectiles.
Does this sound like reasonable force?
Or does this sound like vigilante justice - summary justice without the due process of law.
My opponent appears to come from the Judge Dread school of "law enforcement"
I would also like to direct your attention to some of the myths surrounding gun control in the US, where the NRA and powerfull lobbly groups seek to
hide the REAL statistics and the problems of widespread gun ownership by muddying the waters, so that they can continue to earn billions from an
industry of death.
First lets look at the impact on children
of widespread gun ownership.
In 2005, eight young people aged 19 and under were killed a day by a firearm in the United States. In 2006, 48 per day were non-fatally wounded.
This and other statistics on the page are due mostly to handguns which were bought primarily for self defense.
Then there's the problem of domestic violence
where a 2003 study showed that
the presence of a gun in the home made it 6 times more likely that an abused woman would be murdered than other abused women, and this is before we
even start to look at the other statistics about guns and domestic violence.
Here are some of the firearm facts
that the NRA and its lobbyists would rather
you did not see, simply because the picture is not quite as rosy as they would have you believe.
As we can see from these FACTS, more guns means more gun violence.
Of course my opponent would have you believe that only "responsible" people would have access to guns - what he neglects to tell us is who decides a
persons responsibility, and why a proportion of the population should go "unprotected" because he doesn't deem them worthy.
This in turn would open the door to many different kinds of litigation against the government for not allowing sections of the populace to possess a
weapon - most notably, the European Human Rights act, which does not allow discrimination of the kind he proposes, and also does not allow the
1.1 Article 1 - obligation to respect human rights
1.2 Article 2 - right to life
1.3 Article 3 - prohibition of torture
1.4 Article 4 - prohibition of slavery
1.5 Article 5 - right to liberty and security
1.6 Article 6 - right to a fair trial
1.7 Article 7 - no punishment without law
1.8 Article 8 - right to respect for private life
1.9 Article 9 - right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1.10 Article 10 - right to freedom of expression
1.11 Article 11 - right to freedom of assembly and association
1.13 Article 13 - right to an effective remedy
1.14 Article 14 - prohibition of discrimination
1.15 Article 15 - derogations
1.17 Article 17 - prohibition of abuse of rights
1.18 Article 18 - limitations on permitted restrictions of rights
If my opponent wishes to discuss these articles which are enshrined in law, I will be more than happy to do so, but the point is, that guns for a
limited few would be against many of these articles of LAW.
People would be appealing every decision not to allow them a weapon, tying up the courts and effectively letting criminals go free because there would
be no room in the justice system to prosecute them, costing billions in much needed resources, just because a few hotheads think they are Charles
I will be further exploring the vigilante culture my opponent seeks to promote - which would also contravene the Human Rights Act, and would
effectively make our police force redundant, leading to anarchy for all but the priveledged few who he decides are worthy of carrying a lethal
1) What would be the criteria for gun ownership, and why?
2) Why have you stopped mentioning swords, when in your first post you lumped them and knives and guns together for "self defense"
Furthermore, we may take the phrase keep and bear arms to mean :a. The possession of firearms, swords and any other weapon pertaining to the acts of
self defence, hunting or martial arts; but not exclusive to these activities.
3) We have highly trained armed response units on our streets - what makes you think that an untrained civilian would be more effective.
4) Where are the hunting preserves, open to the public, IN THE UK which would necessitate the need for the populace to own high-powered weapons of
5) Do you advocate the carrying of concealed guns, knives, swords as a means of self defense in a largely unarmed populace, and if so,why?