From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: I will only threaten the proven guilty.
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:58:30 GMT

In article <1ivessINNnou@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.39@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

>Hi guys.  I used to be anon.526, now I'm not.  

       Now you're anon.39.  Bug improvement.  What happens when you hit
anon.0?  Do you get a prize?

>I will respond briefly
>and generally to some of the numerous responses I got:  
>
>o Am I a radical pacifist declare that I will give another person
>nearly limitless benifit of the doubt before using a gun?
>
>In a way, yes.  I recognize that we live in a peaceful society.

       We (at least I do) live in a peaceful society occasionally punctuated 
by less-than-peaceful occurances.

>I would not point a gun at another human being unless he or she
>were guilty of the intent to harm me or my family or a third party.

       Unless you're a mind reader you can't ever know for certain whether 
they really are, at that moment, guilty of intent to harm you or your 
family.  You have to rely on judgement.  You may have overwhelming evidence 
or none at all.  Good evidence or bad.  But it comes down to whether or not 
you *believe* they are a threat.  It's not right or fair, but we don't get 
to peek into each other's skulls in order to double-check our feelings.

>And in a peaceful soceity, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
>That is what I mean by "nearly limitless benefit of the doubt".

       I'm not sure of what value "innocent until proven guilty," is in this 
circumstance.  Proof is a fairly concrete thing, and until somebody actually 
connects with me (at which point it's likely too later) there's always the 
possibility they don't actually *intend* to hurt me.  (Putting aside the 
fact that someone can hurt or kill you when they weren't actually trying to 
injure you at all).  You have to make a decision based on the available 
evidence whether or not someone presents a threat.  Nobody gets the luxury 
of a lawyer and cross-examination when they're being attacked.
       If you're looking for a situation where you have no doubt, you won't 
find one.

>Is it radical to assume that a man is guilty of evil action or 
>intent until proven guilty?  When it was first written into our
>Constitution it was certainly viewed that way by many.  It's
>right for our government and it's right for me.

       Unless there's something very bizarre hiding behind your anonymous 
username, you are not a government, and the same rules not only don't apply, 
but were never intended to apply.

>"Innocent until proven guilty" only presupposes a state of peace.  When
>the government is at war, it is forced to the lesser evil of killing
>"the enemy" to save society, and if my daily life was in a state of
>siege I might use a gun more readily. 

       This is certainly a different way to view war...  

>But I don't live under siege.  I am not a desperate person.

       None of us are... sitting in front of computer terminals in air-
conditioned offices and computer labs.  Having been in a desperate 
situation, I can say for certain things look different when you're in the 
middle of it than they do before or after.

>o Is it hypocritical to let the police do the "dirty work" of stopping
>criminals?
>
>I don't call the police in the hope that they will beat up some suspect
>I name. 

       You call the police in the hopes they will stop the suspect from 
harming you, coming back to harm you, or simply to prevent them from harming 
others.  How do the police do this?  They usually capture them, using 
physical violence and the threat of deadly force.

>The advantage of calling the police is that restraining the
>dangerous will become a reasoned group decision for which "innocent
>until proven guilty" is mandated by law.  

       You'll note the police aren't interested much in proof.  The courts 
are.  They will stop and detain an individual on "probably cause," which is 
very similar to what you use to determine if someone is a threat to you.  
They will even fire on somene.

>Rather than having a trigger
>finger be the judge and lead jurors, each in its own chamber, there
>will be a real judge and a real jury.

        How poetic.  How emotional.  How completely and utterly meaningless 
ot the topic at hand.  We are not talking about punishing a criminal for a 
crime.  We are talking about ending a threat.  When it is my immediate 
safety in question, I do not apologize for being the one to make the 
decision.     

>Besides, I have never seen a "pro-gun" advocate of compassion towards
>criminals.

        "Compassion" is not at issue here either.  If someone is a threat, I 
am interested only in ending that threat.  Peacefully if possible, with 
deadly force if necessary.  Compassion comes later.

>o So what if Christian Brando was convicted?
>
>So he went to prison and life will be hell form him for a long time.
>His attempt at self-defense was a terrible pyrrhic victory.  That, IMO,
>is the main drawback of using a gun for self-defense.

         You have to make the decision for yourself.  Is it better to risk 
governmental wrath in order to give yourself a better chance in a life or 
death situation?

>o There is no risk of a homicide conviction when no shots are fired.

         That's absurd.  A full forty percent of homicides have nothing to 
do with firearms at all.

>Pointing a loaded gun at someone else, when it is not legally warranted
>as an act of self-defense, is a violent felony by itself and you can go
>to prison for it. 

         Then you must be damned sure it's warrented before you do it.  If 
you don't feel your judgement (or your conscience) isn't up to it, fine.  
Not pointing a gun at someone when it is warranted can make you end up 
dead.  That too is a decision that must be made for yourself.

>If you point a gun at an assumed prowler in your
>yard and it turns out to be the neighbor's kids playing, your program
>of self-defense may well be a miserable failure.

          Which is why you should be very sure of what you're pointing a gun 
at.

>o How come I don't have any statistics?
>
>Because I am not giving advice.  

          You are simply making unnsupported accusations and backing them up 
with assumptions which are themselves backed up by nothing.  A house of 
cards built on thin air doesn't support much weight.

>If I were to advise all of you here
>that self-defense with a gun risks a deserved prison sentence, then it
>would be incumbent upon me to back it up with some "data".  But your
>risk of going to prison is not my concern here.  Obviously most of 
>you think you can bear the risk.  Unless your program of self-defense
>is an intolerable risk to society, it's your business, even if it
>might be foolish for you personally.

           Hmm.  "Intolerable risk to society."

>On the other hand, I have never seen any statistics to demonstrate that
>my doctrine of non-confrontation results in a shorter life expectancy
>or higher burglary insurance, only statistics about those isolated
>experiences involving face-to-face confrontations with violent strangers.

           I would wager nobody has bothered to do such a study.

>However, many people here have advised Rich Kelly that defending
>yourself with a gun is a good idea, and they have not addressed, with
>or without statistics, the possibility of making a criminal error when
>doing so.  

           You will find here that the principle concern is on the victim's 
life.  Whether they will face criminal proceedings afterward is an 
important, but secondary considertion.  The general feeling appears to be 
that you only have the *option* of using a gun if you have one, and you have 
to alive to face the government's wrath.

>Statitics were instead given on other, and in my
>mind, ultimately irrelevant, points.

            Such as?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:26091 alt.society.civil-liberty:7298