From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:48:50 GMT


In article <10NOV199221260689@vxcrna.cern.ch>, ikeda@vxcrna.cern.ch (IKEDA,M./EP) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov10.062123.7756@nntp.csl.sony.co.jp>, kono@csl.sony.co.jp writes...

|> >Saying "freeze!" with the gun is far from self-defense.  Peirs shot
|> >Hattri with clear intention of killing before break-in or starting
|> >fire. It is very close to a murder.  I'm very impressed by that fact
|> >that many readers of s.c.j protect the irrational shoot.
|> 
|> Actually there has been a significant number of posts (at least initially
|> when the incident was reported on scj) that strongly criticised the
|> shooting.  What you are seeing is actually a microcosm of the US about
|> the gun debate.  A very loud (or in the netnews sense, very fast typing)
|> and aggressive group who are probably card-carrying NRA members use the
|> natural fear of crime as way to encourage people in the US that any form
|> of gun-control will take away the right for Americans to kill anyone from
|> dangerous criminals to suspicious intruders to less-than-suspicious looking
|> tuxedo-wearing boys.  You now see why gun-control advocates have such
|> a difficult time in the US.

Say what?  I was one of the original posters who stated that based on
the reports here of the facts, and my knowledge of the law, the homeowner
was in trouble.  I'm a "card carrying NRA" member (life member in fact).
I strongly support the right of peaceful citizens to possess effective
means to provide for their own defense.  I do *NOT* condone or support
people who through malice or neglegence abuse their rights and cause injury
to others.  Nor does the NRA (although I think they slipped on this
issue when they supported Carl Rowan).

I figured having had my say once, anything else was repetition, which
characterizes most of the debate on this thread in the meantime.

I was also the person responding to several of Mr. Masuda's posts
regarding the desirability of mandatory training for gun owners.  In
that post, I outlined a scheme which I would support, provided it had
adequate protections against being perverted into an effective gun
ban.  Except for another NRA member sending me E-mail to suggest some
additional safeguards, no one else has picked up that discussion.
Instead, Mr. Masuda and others continue to post mostly empty repetitions
of the "why isn't gun training like ..." variety; essentially arguing
hypothetical cases by questionable analogies to other hypothetical
cases.

I don't read s.c.j, so I'm unaware of activity in that group which
is not cross-posted to t.p.g.

I'll say it one last time: based on the facts as I've heard them reported,
and my knowledge of the laws regarding use of deadly force in self
defense,  Peirs is in trouble.  The Grand Jury agreed.  We now await
the outcome of a trial by a jury of Peirs' peers to determine whether
beyond a reasonable doubt he acted unlawfully.  That subject should
be closed for now.

If you want to discuss changes in the U.S. laws regarding possession
and use of firearms with reasonable (albeit "card carrying NRA members")
gunowners, there is a proposal on the table.  Gun control advocates
in the U.S. have such a difficult time because they have absolutely
no credibility when they say "we're not talking about banning guns".
-- 
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu