Hmmm ... we're moving towards a consensus ... where's the fun in that?

I wanted you to say, "It isn't so! America isn't like that" But you didn't. So I had to accept you really believed you lived in a highly dangerous society and were under constant threat. After all, you're there, and I'm not.

The true position is (I think) that America and Britain are remarkably safe places for the vast majority of its citizens to live in. Many may never have seen an unholstered gun or heard a shot fired in anger. There's violence on the fringes, but it's not likely to affect most citizens, and if it does, then it's only on a rare occasion. Unfortunate for the few who are caught up in the violence, possibly tragic, even, but on the grand scale, barely noticeable.

So, if we are mainstream citizens, do we take steps to protect ourselves? Yes, certainly. We can arm ourselves. Or we can stay away.

If we arm ourselves and walk into the lion's den, can we then be heard to say we are innocent victims?

But what if members of the violent underworld go out looking for unarmed people to rob rape and kill? Should we be prevented from defending ourselves. To me, the answer is clear. No. You should not be prevented from defending yourself. In fact you may do whatever is necessary - but no more than necessary - to protect yourself. In England, self-defence is a complete defence to a charge of murder, but it is no defence if excesive force is used. For example, during the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland (NI laws are similar to English laws in this respect) a British soldier shot three times at the windscreen of a car that was speeding towards a road block he was manning. As the car crashed through the road block and sped away, the soldier fired a fourth shot through the rear window, killing the driver. At his trial, it was held that the first three shots were fired in self-defence, and if the driver had been killed by one of those shots, the soldier would have been exonerated: but the fourth shot was murder.

It is legitimate to use a gun in self-defence where you are facing a threat to your own life, but if you use a gun where there is no threat to your life, then you have gone too far. Maximum deterrence is only appropriate in a few limited circumstances.

And if you shoot an unarmed intruder by accident or mistake, you cannot claim self defence. All the more so if an innocent bystander is hit.

Furthermore, displaying a gun to an intruder is an implicit threat that you will use it, and this could cause him to legitimately fear for his own life, even if you do not intend to fire. If he shoots you first, he can claim self-defence and walk free.

So, my question now is this. If we live in a "safe" society, and, furthermore, the laws on self-defence are such that it is very easy to become the assailant rather than a victim defnding himself, why do we need to deliberately arm ourselves with guns? Or anything else for that matter. After all, we have police forces to protect us, don't we? And, by and large, don't they keep our streets safe? OK, they might not be around when a violent crime is actually being committed, but I don't think we pay them enough to be able to see into the future and to stop crimes before they are committed. While we are waiting for them to arrive, we must fend for ourselves as best we can, and I admit a gun could come in handy.

But the possibiity of such an incident affecting any particular citizen is remote (and for most people it would never happen), and so widespead gun-ownership to meet such a contingency would be over-reacting. A balance has to be struck between the safety of an individual and what we call "the public good". We consider freely available weapons to be contrary to the public good.