🚀 go-pugleaf

donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>Huh?  There is no excuse at all for shooting people, other than self
>defense.  No matter how sad someone's story, once they pick up a weapon, any 
>weapon and hurt someone innocent, I don't think feeling sorry for them is
>reasonable.  

	Shooting people in self defense is *arguably* excusable, and
I believe should be addressed on a situational basis. Use of deadly
force in self-defense needs to be restricted to cases where it was
clearly necessary. This is a subtle and sticky problem. If someone
attacks me and I shoot them through the thigh and run away, was it
justified? What if I overreact and shoot them between the eyes?

	Basically, use of deadly force in self-defense places the
judiciary in the unfortunate role of having to apply 20-20 hindsight
to a tricky (often vague) tactical problem. Us armchair hussars will
tell you that 20-20 hindsight applied to tactics is often blind.

	One issue lots of pro-guns-as-self-defense-tools advocates
gloss over is the fact that many firearms accidents are a result
of mistaken attempts at self defense. Should shooting the cat,
or the postman, or one's neighbor kid, or one's own foot, in an
accident where one *thought* one was being attacked be treated as
"just a mistake" or as manslaughter?

	I believe that if someone wishes to accept the responsibility
of using deadly force to defend h*self, they should go to jail if
they turn out to have applied deadly force by mistake, just like
any other irresponsible criminal.

>And in most cities, the good guys don't have the
>legal means to fight back.

	Don, you continually ignore the tactical reality that most
urban shootings are not exchanges of fire, but are unilateral attacks
by surprise. Please explain to me how having a gun in my pocket will
help me if that loonie in DC decides to discharge his shotgun into
the back of my head while I'm getting the groceries.

mjr.