From: query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:57:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.174422.9520@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.060623.4197@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>>	Deadly force...  That force which is used to cause death or great
>> bodily harm.  Such force is only to be used as a last resort, when all
>> other means have failed.
>> 	You don't exactly have a lot of leeway there...  all other means
>> have failed means essentially, that you cannot run, you cannot use another,
>> less deadly means of defense, or the attacker has a weapon classified in
>> the deadly force group.  Essentially, what this says to me is that a gun is
>> only to be used for purposes of dealing death.
u>
>Not true. Different tates have different requirements. The norm tends to be you
>must try to use all reasonable alternatives including fleeing. The "Western
>Defense" (called so because it becomes more predominant as you move west across
>the country) states that if you are under a reasonable fear or someone
>attacking you OR your property, you may stop them with deadly force. That can
>be as little as you are afraid they might strike you barehanded.
>
	Either you are saying that, in order to be able to truthfu;lly say
that you exhausted every opportunity be actually trying said alternatives
and discovering that they couldnt work,  or, you dont need to try anything
at all before you use deadly force, depending on the state?
	So, if I were in an alley, boxed in by several attackers, I would
have to try to run, try to fend them off bare handed or with a non deadly
force class weapon, scream for help, pray to god, dance like a chicken, or
any of a thousand other things before I could legally shoot them?
	Or, given the 'western law' deal, I could just shoot someone if
they were approacing me rapidly, and looked dangerous?  Without first
seeing if I could figure out what their intent was?  
	Granted, those might be extreme cases here... 
	I still say that the last resort is deadly force, and that there is
an area in the middle of the shoot on sight/dance like a chicken to see if
that works first area.  If you feel that you cannot do ANYTHING else, then
shoot. 
	Also remember though, that the legality of your even having a
handgun on you or discharging it can bring on legal hassles. A guy in (I
think it was Zion) Illinois who owns a convenience store was being robbed.
The attackers had guns drawn, had allready fired one shot at the security
camera.  The proprietor had a shotgun in his hands and managed to shoot the
two attackers while they were in the process of attacking a shopper there.
The store owner got some hellacious fine for having 'unlawfully discharged
a firearm' within the city limits...  in order to get the fine lessened,
the storeowner had to drop some of the charges put on the robbers.  May be
an example of justice gone wrong, but, according to the laws, it was wrong
of him tro shoot the robbers.
	Guess all I can say, as there is no point in debating on this, is,
learn the laws of your area, as others may be different, by getting legal
advice from an attorney, before getting a firearm for defense.  Never hurts
to make sure that there will be no nasty legal surprises t pop up on you.
	Sam
>> 	
>> 	Finally, on handgun fatality statistics, they are only that:
>> Statistics.  Don't even consider the odds that you might only wound your
>> attacker, because they are irrelevant.  Consider only this fact:  Your
>> using a gun for defense HAS to signify your willingness to kill your
>> attacker.  Period.
>
>In my opinion, if someone were low enough to warrant pulling the gun, one might
>feel no remorse in aiming for the skull. (But, the chest is a better target as
>you are more likely to hit.)
>
>DC
>
Newsgroups: talk.rape