board77

yov - that is a beautiful example of why I stayed out of Manwe for a while! The two sides, no matter what division, that were so far apart they were in danger of meeting at the back - and both saying the same things about the other's modus operandi, usually!

eborr wrote:

Quote:

It’s the boundry between the interior and exterior of the house.


They shouldn’t; the rules and security of the College/University should apply. If the Institution wishes to allow live-in students to keep guns, so be it.

Does that give you a right to force entry into someone’s home? What about normal legal options?

If you shoot a fireman putting out a fire in your home, you’re an idiot, and would be charged with murder.

THe purpose of the questions I posed was to question the notion of what constitutes a "home" which seem to me to be your main criterion as to your "right" to attack someone with a lethal weapon.

Obviously I was being more abtuse than I intended, because I wished to demonstrate that the argument in it's simple form is farcial, do you wish to shoot people because they come un-invited to your property, or do you wish to shoot someone because they are going to relieve you of your property or do you wish to shoot someone because they endanger you,

I would suggest in this day you are far more likely to loose property because some pension company or your employer mismanages your pension contributions, and you are in far more danger of being killed on the highway, so by those ethical criterion I am entitled to go shoot fund managers and bad drivers

Pension managers are not specifically attempting to rob you and put themselves in a situation where they are likely to physically harm you. Bad drivers are not deliberately attacking your person.

In all honesty, if you do not the moral basis for harming and/or using any force necessary against someone who is deliberately, intentionally, and unequivocally trying to bash or rape you then I’m not sure that we can interact on this topic. In my opinion, the right to be safe from being murdered, based or raped is ultimate over all other rights and freedoms. Likewise, I see a distinct moral superiority in the position of someone who trying to someone from carrying off their TV. There are grey areas, but all law has grey areas. If it didn’t, then there would be no need for lawyers; judges could be PC programs written in visual basic.

I have already explained myself over my views on liberalism and the effectiveness of Government, so I won’t go over them.

eborr wrote:

eborr wrote:

There are a number of contracts that you do not sign up to but still bind you. For example, when you buy/sell something, there are many, many provisos that neither party is usually aware of. I’d like there to be a way that the social contract could be voluntary, but it’s impractical. I suppose that, by staying in the country as its citizen you are ‘digning up’ through conduct.

then it's not a contract, the definition of a contract is that it is an agreement not an imposition which is the word you are looking for

Perhaps I should have said ‘contract-like’, as some sorts of things, such as torts and trusts, are certainly contractual in nature (IOW, a private system of mutual obligations). I see the Social Contract as being similar, except that it is a public system that people enter into by living in a country and collectively voting for the Government.

eborr wrote:

Quote:

Compare my identical political ideology poll threads between here and TORC.

One of the reasons I have pretty much given up on TORC is the number of right wing tossers who post there, so I don't take that as any meaningful yardstick

See yovargas’ comments. Based on REL’s and TED’s left/right polls, the distribution was fairly even, but those on the left (or at least the progressives) always seemed more present and vocal.

yovargas wrote:

Manwe, at the very least, was notoriously pro-left, anti-right. The supression and hostility towards the views from the right was Manwe's greatest problem.

May have been once, but it ain't anymore.

Hey how about a quick show of hands.

Who will shoot someone over a stereo?






The point i'm making is that
most people don't want to kill another person, if they did they would be locked up, I can't think of a single person I know who would kill a person do keep their stereo.

Are gun laws perfect? No.
But then again what law is perfect?
If only perfect laws can be passed then I doubt there would be many laws at all.

I don't see any major problem with this law, I wonder if maybe this law is already in place in other states, and if so how was it handled there?

Quote:

I would suggest in this day you are far more likely to loose property because some pension company or your employer mismanages your pension contributions, and you are in far more danger of being killed on the highway, so by those ethical criterion I am entitled to go shoot fund managers and bad drivers

Those ethical criterion only lead to that conclusion if you are intellectually dishonest or prone to extreme errors of logic and sense.

The whole thing with a home invasion is you don't know what the man invading the home is going to do --- he could just be there to steal, or he could be there to attack, rape, kill, kidnap --- he has presented an imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm just by breaking in.

There are other mechanisms for keeping bad drivers off the road. There are far more efficient and humane mechanisms than deadly force for keeping bad drivers off the road. What other mechanism besides potential deadly force is there for a 120 pound woman against a 200 pound man who has invaded her home? The threat is imminent, there is no help the law can give immediately. If there is an alternative, an immediate and equally effective alternative to deadly force --- I'd like to hear it. Seriously. Whataya got?

Either present an alternative, or just admit ... well that woman is dead. Sorry. Some people are just fucked. And of course public policy is full of nasty decisions like this, on both sides of the political spectrum. But let's not kid ourselves about it.

The argument isn't --- a citizen is entitled to shoot someone who is stealing his property or who may endanger his life by his actions in the future.

The argument is --- a citizen is entitled to shoot someone who is immediately endangering or threatening his life by his actions, and there are no less drastic alternatives available.

Fund managers and bad drivers have nothing to do with the actual criteria. Spleesh.

Those are perfectly good principles, Faramond.

Where the problem creeps in is in the fact that a gun kept in the house is far more likely to kill a household member accidentally, or be used in a suicide, or be used by one household member against another in a moment of rage, or be stolen, than to ever be used successfully to defend a member of the household. This is why we don't own one, even though my husband likes guns just fine (for target shooting) and uses them well. (It's true that a friend of his was shot and killed accidentally by another friend when they were all about ten years old.)

We could keep one and store it safely--but my husband's definition of safe storage (taken apart and locked up separately from the ammunition in hidden places) would ensure that the gun would never be of any use against an intruder. So, again, why bother?

We had a school shooting in our community in 1998 (link). This certainly affects many people's views, including my own; the family involved tried to control their son's gun obsession (which they strongly disliked) by buying him a rifle for target shooting and keeping it locked up. Four people, including both parents and two students, were killed, and twenty-five more were injured--most with the supposedly locked-up weapon. This happened about six miles from my house.

I don't feel that I or my children are less safe because we don't keep a gun. There might be a scenario in which a gun we owned would save us. I think there are many more in which it would harm us.

vincent wrote:

Who will shoot someone over a stereo?

It's not *really* about the stereo, though. If person A is willing to deliberately harm innocent person B for his own personal gain when the possibility to earn an honest living exists, then I have no sympathy for him if he gets hurt or killed in the process. I don't know what I personally would do if I discovered someone stealing my stereo in the middle of the night, but either way, I wouldn't think less of person B if he decided to fight back. If you don't have the right to defend your own home from invaders who mean to do you harm, you don't have any rights at all. I'm liberal (by the US definition) on most social issues, but violent crime is one area where I take a hard-line stance.

I sit very much in line with the view that the UK law holds in that you are able to use reasonable force to protect your lives and property.

In practical terms that would mean if somebody enters your property, and you percieve them to threaten you then you could use a weapon to defend yourself if you fellt threatened providing that force was proportionate, this would mean that you could for example use a baseball bat, kitchen knife antique sword hung on the wall, and if as a consequence of your actions there was a fatality then you would not have committed a crime.

What you are not entitled to do would be to offer a coup de grace. You are not prohibited in using a firearm in these circumstances, save that the use of a firearm would be difficult if you complied with the gun owning laws which insist that the weapon is stored in a gun safe with the ammunition in a different location.

Let's move onto the fund managers and bad drivers argument, why is it intellectually dishonest, we have seen the proposition that you should armed to protect you lives/home from intruders, if you accept that proposition, then why not extend it to those who would take away your property or threaten your safety by other means, the defence I have been offered is intent, so lets explore this a little.

It is a common part of a judicial system to treat crimes which involve ommission rather than commision less severely, fair enough, but let's suppose we take the stereo theif as suggested by Vincent, the individual breaks into your house with the intent of stealing the stereo, and you shoot him, his intent was not to threaten life. Lets move onto the fund managers, lets suppose they decide because the fund has been performing ahead of expectations they offer the employers the option of a holiday, consequently as things happen the fund performs less well and a shortfall in the fund appears, now whilst they cannot be held personally accountable, for the rise and fall in the stockmarket, they have had a direct role in the diminishing of the contribution to the fund, there is intent, or commission.

Similarly the bad driver, yes there are genuine accidents, people do make honest mistakes, but there are bad drivers, who drive agressively, selfishly, who are aware of what they are doing and keep going, there are elderly drivers, who drive slowly because of failing physical competence (answer if you can't drive safely at normal speeds you can't drive safely) these people do show a level of intent, they conciously get into their cars and drive, when they should modify there behaviour.

Well, Prim, I agree with you, actually.

edit: somehow I read Prim's name as MariaHobbit before! Well they are both hobbits! Also, I cross posted with some others, and may respond to those arguments later, if I can get my head screwed on straight.

This is the kind of argument I respect.

And I don't like guns, and don't have one.

But if your position is that handguns should be banned (which you didn't actually say) then one has to acknowledge the people who then won't have an opportunity to defend themselves.

And if one's position is that handguns should be legal and accessible, then one has to acknowledge that the probabilty of deadly accidents and rage killings goes way up.

It's not an easy question.

Prim - valid points, and that would be a reason I don't own a gun. In fact, there is a VERY good reason I don't own a gun - my bipolar. If I have a gun it may be just too easy to take it and rest the barrel against my head and pull the trigger.

BUT.

Because some people can't be responsible with guns ( those using it against a family member in anger, etc ), now those that CAN handle the gun also get deprived.

That's just life, there's always trade-offs and compromise. No way to know beforehand who would definitely be a "safe" gun owner. The only decision left is then deciding what side of caution to err on, to put it that way.

I don't know if someone's ( maybe perceived ) right of self-defence should be taken away because someone else would be a menace owning a gun, though.

As Faramond said, deadly force is sometimes the only way to protect yourself. I hate modern society's way of making the criminal the victim in the situation, all the laws passed to protect criminals. ( OK, I know that sentence is an overreaction and overgeneralization )

It would have been interesting to have stats from yonder years when every household had guns, sons were taught to respect the guns, and got a gun of their own, and wives and daughters could also use the gun if needed. To know how many people got killed with gun accidents before pop culture glorified guns and before people either lost respect for handling them, or became afraid and clumsy with them through handling them seldom.

That was some random Griffon thoughts

Quote:

I don't feel that I or my children are less safe because we don't keep a gun. There might be a scenario in which a gun we owned would save us.

I have to say, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with this had I not been faced with a doped-up 200+ lb. very recent ex-con IN MY HOME. Face to face. Me and him. And my 13-old Sheltie, who wagged his tail to the guy in greeting.

With all due respect, Prim, I guess you had to be there.

Isn't there an old saying that the definition of a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged?

Quote:

this would mean that you could for example use a baseball bat, kitchen knife antique sword hung on the wall

Can I safely assume that you are a male, eborr?

Was I then expected to, if attacked, or about to be attacked, find a kitchen knife and have at the man? Go get my boy's baseball bat, perhaps, and knock him a good one? Do you really think I would have survived such a thing?

The only resonable defense that I can imagine is one involving power and distance. If a man, who not only outweighs me by a good bit but is a MAN, they are often stronger than women , can physically get his hands on me, I've lost.

I am no Lara Croft. And I believe that all that "girl power" stuff in the movies is so much crap. Men are going to win, up against women, almost all of the time. That's just a fact. And one that I believe most women are well aware of.

Quote:

The whole thing with a home invasion is you don't know what the man invading the home is going to do --- he could just be there to steal, or he could be there to attack, rape, kill, kidnap --- he has presented an imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm just by breaking in

Quote:

What other mechanism besides potential deadly force is there for a 120 pound woman against a 200 pound man who has invaded her home? The threat is imminent, there is no help the law can give immediately. If there is an alternative, an immediate and equally effective alternative to deadly force --- I'd like to hear it. Seriously. Whataya got

Faramond,

For someone who has never been a woman (that I am aware of ), you sure have nailed this! It is very gratifying to see a man understand this scenario so well. I find that many men have difficulty understanding the pure terror of being rather small and defenseless, completely helpless against a someone whose intent is unknown. I was lucky that day. But all I had on my side was luck.

I know I'm getting a tad melodramatic, and I will try to curb it. But it was a big deal to me!

Griffy and Dave, I am so glad you brought up the idea of invaders as victims. If they are in my house to potentially rob, rape or kill me or my family, they have JUST run out of sympathy from me. Sorry!

Anthy, as someone who's been victim to crime as well ...

Fortunately, I've only been burgled while not there - THREE TIMES, also once while I was in the house, but the intruder just snuck in, grabbed my cell phone, and made off. I strolled to fetch it some time later, and ... the cell phone was gone, the smell of a stranger hung there, and I saw the automatic garage door had stuck and the house was open to the street.

You can't know the chill, the terror, the sheer helpless fear ( and anger ), until you've been there. I've also almost been hijacked at gunpoint ( I pulled away and they didn't shoot at me. I could have been dead a good four years now, instead of typing here ) and I've been harassed a few times by passersby on the street with nothing better to do than assert dominance over me because I'm 5 foot 7 of normally built woman, and THEY are men.

So, I get riled at people dismissing this kind of fear out of hand. If you are firmly in the bottom half of the world population in terms of sheer physical strength, there is always a brain cell or two in "small, furry critter" mode which KNOWS you are vulnerable to stronger predators.

By the way I happen to have five swords in my house, to address the relatively common kitchen knife / sword fantasy people have. And I have some wicked kitchen knifes. Three of those swords can kill, the other two are not sharpened. But really, do I have a chance against a man? I have ONE chance, because he is stronger. Unless I run him right through first time, which is not a skill I've been trained in, he can wrench that sword or knife from me easy and kill me with it, or perhaps just strangle me or break my neck. You don't just take a blade and chop someone in two. Again, you need POWER to do that. Try to stab a man wrestling you to the ground? No fucking way. He grabs your little female wrist in one paw and bend you backwards.

So what I'm saying is, expecting a woman to defend herself with a knife against even an unarmed man is unfair. The man already has the advantage because his physical strength is greater. A woman going with knife or baseball bat ( or cricket bat ) at an unarmed man still has the disadvantage, the lesser power. Sorry, but that is true.

I've almost been strangled once in my life. An argument with someone that didn't go well I sometimes still get nightmares about that, and just thinking about now it I can feel those horribly strong hands around my throat again, and the panic of desperately trying to tear them away and not being strong enough. It is not a good feeling to realize you cannot save yourself, cannot do anything to prevent harm to yourself.

So no, unless you've been there you really can't hypothesize about the situation too much.

That is something men sometimes just don't understand. *hugs Faramond REALLY tight for understanding* You rock, boyfriend!

I am still not saying I'm pro-gun, because I'm not. But I am anti "Just suck it up". That attitude goes nowhere. In a perfect world honest, law-abiding, innocents would not be butchered in their homes, but we don't have that now, do we? Yet we try through all kinds of "perfect world" laws to install perfect methods to deal with the consequences of what the world are, instead of addressing the true problems. Trying to patch over imperfection with faked perfection helps as much as papering over cracks ( which is another topic entirely! )

As I stated before, must the choice to be able to protect oneself be given up because their are people who can't deal with the responsibility of owning a gun? I don't know, I really don't. But I tend to doubt it. While I would never want to own a gun, does that mean I must demand no-one else owns one either? Guns are a category by themselves but really, rage crimes happen with kitchen knifes, too. Will kitchen knifes be subject to law in 12 years? Once the guns are gone, rage crimes will get committed by other things. Ditto suicide.

Getting started about invaders and criminals being considered victims so often nowadays is just a whole OTHER can of worms getting me warm under the collar

I have seen a man run away after trying to steal my stereo in my car, didn't shoot him, just watched him run into the night, am I glad I had my gun? Yes. Did I use it no, did the guy stealing my stereo know I had it yes, and boy did he run fast! Didn't even point it at him.
A gun is only the threat of deadly force, and sometimes the threat is all you need. Still I was tempted to fire over his head just to terrorize him some before he got away.

Anthy, it's true that I haven't "been there," and I'm sorry you were. As I said, I can imagine scenarios in which having access to a gun would save me or my family.

The problem is the other scenarios, which are much more common in my experience--the accidental shootings of children by children, the suicides of teenage boys, the Thurston shootings, which were horrific (my oldest, then 10 years old, came home that day and asked, "Mom, am I safe in school?" and I couldn't tell him the flat truth: no). I know that some people successfully protect themselves with guns they keep in their homes. It's just that I've never known anyone who did--and I have known victims of all the other scenarios.

So maybe a liberal is a conservative who's been to too many funerals?

I sorry I wasn't here to discuss and rebut some of the earlier comments but rather than try to attribute responses to individuals I'll try to respond to the arguments in general.

Firstly I will respond to the comment that my argument was "intellectually dishonest". It was no such thing. We are not arguing about a right to defend oneself, we are talking about the right to kill someone in the event that we feel threatened.

I have a huge problem with laws that allow an individual to take anothers life because they felt threatened. That is lawlessness. To put it in it's simplest terms, two wrongs don't make a right. If someone steals my stereo, should I be entitled to break into his house and steal it back? No. I should be able to go to the police and have them get it back and send the guy to jail. This "Eye for an Eye" mentality is frightening. I thought in a modern society we had progressed beyond that. Apparently I was wrong.

I do not deny that I live in a very priveleged society where lawlessness is minimal, but I do believe that it is primarily because guns are not easily accessible. I do feel for women in this case, although I seriously doubt how effective I would be against a fit younger man. That is not what's in question. There is a fundamental problem with a law that allows a person to be judge, jury and executioner and protects their right to do so.

Of course we can all produce arguments where either side of the discussion can be proved farcical. You could have the kid who's shot getting his ball from the back yard, or the woman who's raped and murdered because she didn't have ammo for her Uzi but these are what I would call "intellectually dishonest" arguments. The simple cold fact is that nobody should have the legal right to end anothers life. When that happens it is a failing of law enforcement.

It's of course easy for me to take the high moral ground when my life is not in danger from a strung out drug user looking for money for a hit, but that is not what we're talking about. If my family was threatened I may very well attempt to kill the intruder, but I don't expect to have the legal right to do so. That is the crux of the matter.

Alatar

Ah, but using a gun to defend yourself isn’t ‘punishing’ the attacker, it’s protecting yourself. When someone (or two, or three) comes into your house, you don’t know their attentions. Draw a gun, remind him/them that you live in a State where deadly force is allowed for self defence, and off they go (hopefully).

I am in favour of gun ownership, but also strict gun regulation. To own and use a car, you must pass a written and practical test, get registered, and if you aren’t using it safely then you’re not allowed to continue. I envision gun licenses for different classes of weapons, safety classes and tests, ect. The Swiss handle this whole thing fairly well.

I tend to look at this issue a bit like abortion; it isn’t nice to have to kill or threaten to kill people under any circumstances, just like I don’t think it’s nice to destroy yet-to-be people. However, the alternatives are worse in both cases IMHO.

I have to admit that Prim and Alatar are very close to my way of thinking, and yes we can all relate to horror stories,

yes I am male and in my youth might have been considered physically proposing. but that ain't the point, my fear of weapons comes from hard examples, three of which occured in RSA, the first instance, a brother of an associate of mine, got involved in a bit of a contremtemps with a Taxi driver, which involved the associates brother threatening the taxi driver with a weapon, convinced that he had ogt his point across and assuaged his inability to get an erection, he turned to walk off, as he reached his car he fortuitously ducked at the same time a bullet went past his body, the next example occured when I went on a road trip, my associate convinced that the road between Jo'burg and Durban was going to be like something out of mad max insisted on taking a revolver, when this bright spark got out of the car he handed the loaded weapon to my barrel first, he was surprised I was upset, the third instance occured in 4 Ways shopping mall when an elderly lady trying to find her purse within her handbag caused an accidental mischarge, fortunately no-one was hurt.

These incidents happened within a 10 day period, let me go back to a core statistic there are more deaths per 100,000 in the US from accidental diacharges of weapons, than there are from all forms of death due to weapons in the UK, that means that in a gun culture, you are already have more innocent deaths per 100k than we have murders or suicides - seems to me a pretty compelling argument

Alatar wrote:

We are not arguing about a right to defend oneself, we are talking about the right to kill someone in the event that we feel threatened.

Really? It's interesting how you describe the other side as justifying killing when one "feels threatened". Of course this is a far too generalized and misleading statement of the position you are arguing against. Here is the true position you are arguing against. Replace the word "feel" with "being". And then add some specific conditions to the kinds of threats that actually justify potentially killing.

And once again, it is not about the "right to kill someone". This is such an intellectually dishonest (yes, I'm going to keep saying it if you keep doing it) way of characterizing it. It is about the "right to use potentially deadly force in self-defense when no other reasonable and certain option is available." A much longer phrase, and not as easy to argue against, so it's less convenient. Of course it can be argued against --- I'm not saying it's self-evidently a correct principle. One must acknowledge that a life may still be taken --- it is a proposed right in which someone may still be killed, yes. But once the imminent and specific threat is ended, the right to potentially kill evaporates. The “right to kill” only exists in certain extreme, specific situations that occur due to outside forces. One is NOT allowed to seek out these extreme situations (judge) and then indulge in the “right to kill” (executioner).

Alatar wrote:

]If someone steals my stereo, should I be entitled to break into his house and steal it back? No.

This is a shining example of intellectual dishonesty. Sorry if you don't like the label, but it is. What in blazes does breaking into a house to get back one's property have to do with an IMMINENT threat on one's life? You are confusing vigiliantism with self-defense. This is extraordinarily intellectually dishonest. They have NOTHING to do with each other. I don't understand why many of those arguing against handguns keep coming back to these bizarre examples of vigilantism, such as gunning down bad drivers or fund managers or going on vengance quests for a lost stereo. These have nothing to do with self-defense! Stop making up weird scenarios and start focusing on true examples of self-defense.

Alatar wrote:

There is a fundamental problem with a law that allows a person to be judge, jury and executioner and protects their right to do so.

Again, just such a ridiculous way to characterize the other side. And a cliche as well. It is just so unbelievably arrogant to say that a person using deadly force to protect his or her life has taken on the mantle of judge and executioner. You see, there is simply no chance for the law to actually step in and do its proper function in such a case. If the person being attacked waits for the judge and jury to do their jobs, that person is going to end up dead. But at least dead not havingt violated the law, I guess.

The charge of judge, jury, executioner is properly made when there is a deliberative nature to the killing, when the person has actually made a judgement that someone will be a threat in the future and then goes ahead and executes his sentence of death. Once again you conflate vigilantism with self-defense.

Alatar wrote:

The simple cold fact is that nobody should have the legal right to end anothers life. When that happens it is a failing of law enforcement.

So then law enforcement is truly the last line of defense. The problem, of course, is that law enforcement is far more reactive than proactive. They usually show up after the crime has been committed, so by your standard of failure, law enforcement is failing all the time. Which I suppose may well be an accurate assessment.

Alatar wrote:

If my family was threatened I may very well attempt to kill the intruder, but I don't expect to have the legal right to do so. That is the crux of the matter.

Well this is a very interesting position to take, and certainly a principled one. In spite of my disdain for your attempts to link vigilantism with true self-defense, I actually have some respect for this position you state, though I do not agree with it. It is a consistent pacifist position, in which there simply is no such thing as self-defense. Or at least self-defense as most people would define it. Retreat is a kind of self-defense, I suppose, and that is still available, in this pacifist position you have taken. But when it comes down to it, if you are facing a man who is determined to kill you, and there is no one else to stop him, and retreat is not possilbe, then you either let yourself be killed, or defend yourself and potentially be in violation of the law. I find this very odd, that one can be put into a situation between choosing between breaking the law and being killed. And of course this position isn’t handgun specific, it appears, but would restrict one from any defensive action (knife, baseball bat) that could result potentially in death.


Again, I think Prim is showing the way to make principled arguments here in favor of banning or severly restricting guns. She’s taking a sort of utilitarian angle at the expense of a personal liberty angle, weighing the cost to society and saying that the benifits are not worth the costs. I’m not sure if I agree with this, but there is nothing intellectually dishonest about the argument.

Faramond

I'm too tired right now to give this the response it deserves so I'll leave it till tomorrow, but I will state that I feel you are restructuring my argument into that of a vigilante opposition which was never my intention. I'll clarify tomorrow.

Please stop using the phrase "intellectually dishonest" as I find it insulting. We may disagree but I have never attempted to lie or even twist the truth. There is nothing dishonest about my argument and your phrasing belittles my response. I'm asking nicely.

Alatar

I live in a fairly quiet, pleasant London suburb with a low crime rate.

There are always exceptions. Last February, walking home from work around 7pm, I was threatened by a man who claimed to be on drugs and who robbed me of my handbag ... at knifepoint.

I was in the wrong place at the wrong time: or rather, the dickhead who attacked me was.

The police came very quickly but unfortunately there was no way I would have been able to identify this guy - I am sorry about that as I would have done all I could to prevent him from preying on another person.

Being threatened with a knife was fucking scary. My shock was greater than my fear. I remained very calm. I said a prayer (out loud) but all I could think was, 'He could stab me at any moment.' It felt unreal, as if I was watching a film with me in it. Really really weird.

A year on, I'm fine. But I don't walk home late from the station any more - I get a taxi.

I must say that not once in these thirteen months have I thought about the gun issue in relation to the attack.

I've never handled a gun, I've never seen anybody else handle a gun. People don't own guns where I live.

Only now, in this thread, am I thinking: well - if the laws of my country allowed me to own a handgun, would I use it in that situation? To threaten the bastard back - oh boy yes, that's a good thought. But to kill somebody? God, no. I wanted my attacker caught - I would not want him killed. Such a thought never occurred to me.

I'll tell you something: you do not argue with somebody with a knife. Ever. I was pissed at losing my bag, but I was far more afraid of losing my life.