Thing is, all of us are reasonably intelligent, reasonably self- and mutually-respecting ppl. This is very different from the tiny minority who (as per police statistics) commit the majority of crimes. If everyone has the right to own a gun, that includes this minority. Vetting is a good step to avoiding this situation, but it's not perfect (Dunblane). If threatened, we will shoot at the person threatening us - the trouble is, that other person may not even need that reason, and may be quite prepared to shoot you on sight. So widespread ownership of guns (or any other weapon) is a dangerous thing, at least without the proper teaching/indoctrination so you won't use it on others.

Military training is designed to indoctrinate you to make it psychologically easier for you to kill. In my teens I received the opposite training from my Taekwondo instructor - that you must never fight outside the class. She did that so successfully that one boy in the class was beaten up bcos he wouldn't fight back, and it worked pretty well on me since I previously always used to be in fights. That _doesn't_ mean that I have an easy temper, just that I have a high threshold at which I become provoked (a very thick skin, in other words) which is superficially similar. But there's a few times when that's been crossed, and fortunately the person involved wasn't around. Once was when a friend at uni was being racially harassed - I went over to see him with the single purpose of at least threatening the person responsible, and I'm glad in retrospect that the culprit wasn't around so that the "most" wasn't explored! I have refused to do self-defence training with my wife, on the grounds that the one time I did she seemed to really be fighting, and that kicked my instincts in. I stopped and refused to continue bcos I knew that if she had caught me with an attack, I would almost certainly have responded and hurt her without thinking about it or being able to stop myself, and I couldn't have lived with myself if I'd done that. The flipside of the restraint that training teaches you is that when the instincts are required, you're much more likely to cause harm to the other person since you generally have better skills - this is as true for shooting as for unarmed martial arts.

As far as self-defence or the defence of others goes, the first instinct must _always_ be to attack the person with as much force as possible until they are no longer a threat - in my case that will be hands and feet, or a kitchen knife if I'm at home. Whether they live or die after that is not important - sorry to be so callous, but I believe (and my instincts agree) that you and/or the person/ppl you're protecting have more rights than an attacker.

Sorry this is such a personal note. I tried making it general, but I realised there was no way I could say "in theory in this case, I'd do this or that". I'm quite introspective and I know myself enough to say that theory will have nothing to do with it. (I've rephrased this to cut a rather more detailed explanation, which was a bit too much). This is not pleasant to hear, but it's the only truthful answer to the question. It isn't pleasant to think about either since I don't like being so out of control and I don't like what could happen, but it's not optional, it goes with my body and brain, and I just have to deal with it. Hence I tend to avoid situations where I could get in fights.

Graham.