🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1p7vfu$n81@sol.TIS.COM> mjr@tis.com (Marcus J Ranum) 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?

Anyone qualified to teach self defense will tell you that you don't
shoot somebody a little bit.  You don't shoot the assailant in the leg
or between the eyes because in the stress of the moment, you'll probably
miss.  When someone is a threat to your life, you shoot for the center
of mass, then call 911 and hope (or pray, if so inclined) that they
survive.  People have been shot in the leg and died, people have been
shot in the head and survived.  In a self defense situation, your goal is
to stop the person, not to kill them.

>	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?

It is also considered criminal to shoot, when you're not sure of EXACTLY
what/who you're shooting at.  You have to be damn sure that it's a
burglar or other assailant.  For myself, I know that I couldn't live with
myself if I shot at a sound and it ended up being an innocent person.

>	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.

I couldn't agree with you more.  BTW, would you hold the police to that
same standard?

>>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.

Maybe.  But I doubt the jerk would be out shooting people if someone
who was armed was likely to see him at work and nail him.

Yes, I think it would be acceptable, if I was in my apartment and saw
someone shooting at one of my neighbors, to fire back myself.  _IF_ I
could do so without harming someone innocent.  I have heard of at least
one drive by shooter being nailed this way but, unfortunately, not by
his victim...:(

    don