From: ka02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Kent P. Aitchison)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: The real gamble is lending credence to a fool.
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:12:04 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1it58vINNgbq@flash.pax.tpa.com.au>, anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
>
>An argument has erupted with a one Richard Kelly on the question
>of the risks involved in using a gun for self-defense against
>a criminal.  No one has yet mentioned the greatest risk of
>all in such circumstances:
>
>Your opponent is not actually a criminal.  If you use a gun

 How about '_may_ not actually be a criminal'
        or '_may_ not actually perform a criminal act'?

>against him, you will be the criminal.
>
>Although nearly every self-defense use of a gun reported in the Armed
>Citizen involves mutual strangers, in reality, even for most
>*justifiable* homicides, the parties involved are not strangers.
 Good point, I'm not sure about the _most_ part, though.

>you use your gun for self-defense, it will probably be against someone
>you know.  Whether or not your actions are warranted will be an issue.
 Yes...  Of course I would have to explain my actions.

>But if you actually are facing a criminal, you may not have time to
>think about it.  And if you're not and you jump to conclusions, life
>will really stink for you.

 Of course the possibility _exists_ that I would make a bad decision.  I know
 that owning/carrying a firearm is not just a simple expression of my freedoms
 under the U.S. Constitution.  I know that I am charged with certain distinct
 responsibilities with respect to my exercised freedom.  The same goes for my
 right to speek freely - I know I cannot yell 'fire' to clear a room I want to
 myself.  What modern citizens do to responsibly exercise their rights is
 learn and practice.  I ponder potential situations, I practice my skills and
 I limit the possibility for error as best I can.  You might do the same with
 respect to your polemics.

>If you reach the point of fatally shooting
>your acquaintance, you will go to prison.  You will live with the guilt
>of extinguishing an innocent life.  And, ironically, the NRA will cite
>you as yet another reason for everyone else to own a gun.

 Hardly worth comment.  NRA has never, while I have been reading, published an
 'Armed Citizen' blurb involving a criminal act on the part of the defending
 citizen.

>
[Factually, logically questionable, non-supportive example and argument deleted]
>

>
>Speaking for myself, I declare that:
>
>I will always give another human being nearly limitless benefit of the
>doubt before pointing a gun at him or her.  If it means I or
>someone in my family might die needlessly, so be it.  At least I
>won't kill needlessly.
>
 Choose your own fate.
>
>--
>** Anonymity & Privacy by PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) *
*

    The inanity of the messages from the PAX-man seems to fluctuate day to
    day.  Couldn't anyone send messages from anywhere and take credit for being
    this person?  I doubt this is australian in origin.  I think this is
    cowardly and american net.badger(s)@puppethead.liberal.smokescreen.com.
    Please take a step to legitimacy and identify yourself.  I apologize for
    wasting bandwidth bandying with a ghost, but this one burned me.
    Hereafter I will respond only to responsible, identifiable net.beings.

    Kent


    
-- 

****************************************
**     Kent P. Aitchison              **
**       ka02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu       **
**       Rauch Business Center 211    **
**       #37 Lehigh University        **
**       Bethlehem, PA  18015         **
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns