The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[MMI]

It's not a crisis of faith, nor an epiphany, and I haven't recanted yet, Thorne. I am simply questioning my position in the light of information I was previously unaware of, and, to be honest, am having difficulty accepting.

You say that a "well-armed and well-trained citizenry" would do more good than anything else. But what about a well-armed but poorly-trained citizenry? Are you advocating another law like the one in the C16th suppressing the playing of cricket in favour of compulsory target practice on the village green? What's the American experience here?

(In fact, it was necessary for that law to absolve archers from the crime of murder if they killed someone during archery practice! Would it be necessary to have a modern law making a similar provision?)

I wonder if crime in America has fallen in areas where concealed weapons can be carried because the criminals fear their "marks" could be dangerously incompetent gunmen. Or does that not matter, because crime has fallen and the end justifies the means?

[Thorne]

You say that a "well-armed and well-trained citizenry" would do more good than anything else. But what about a well-armed but poorly-trained citizenry?

First of all, this is only my opinion.I have no hard facts to back it up. But I definitely mean a well-trained citizenry. I believe every registered gun owner should be required to pass certification tests in the handling, maintenance and safety of weapons. Those who cannot pass the tests should not be granted a permit.

(In fact, it was necessary for that law to absolve archers from the crime of murder if they killed someone during archery practice! Would it be necessary to have a modern law making a similar provision?)

Not at all! Those who apply for permits to own and carry concealed weapons should not be considered part of the militia unless they are actually called into service by their government. Given proper gun safety and licensed practice ranges there should be no problems with such incidents.

I wonder if crime in America has fallen in areas where concealed weapons can be carried because the criminals fear their "marks" could be dangerously incompetent gunmen. Or does that not matter, because crime has fallen and the end justifies the means?

I don't know the reasons for it, only that it does seem to be the case. I would think that a dangerously incompetent gunman might be more dangerous to himself than to any potential criminal.

Does the end justify the means? I don't know the answer to that. Sometimes it might. But the death of one innocent person by an armed civilian who thinks he is only defending himself would negate any good that has been done. ANY death or even injury occurring during a criminal attack would have to be investigated by the police, but with the prevalence of CCTV cameras virtually everywhere, that should be far less of a problem than in the past. And an armed civilian who killed an attacker without just cause would have to be charged and tried just as any criminal would be.

As I've said in the past, I don't claim to have all the answers. But it is my strong belief that disarming civilian populations only makes them more likely to be targets of criminals, not less. As GB is learning, it's impossible to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. Not allowing citizens to defend themselves only makes the criminals bolder.