From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:36:46 GMT

anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

Normally I consider that people who are not prepared to identify
themselves are not worth arguing with, but in this case....

>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
>against him, you will be the criminal.

You mean, I take it, that there is a _risk_ that the opponent
has no criminal intent.  If your opponent is armed and threatening
you with physical violence, I think the risk is slight, but
you are quite correct in suggesting that there are circumstances
in which it is not that clear.  Indeed, the recent shooting of
a Japanese exchange student is a tragic example of that.

>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.

I think you are bending the statistics a bit here.  Most homicides
involve people who are not strangers, but it does not follow that
this applies to most uses of a gun for self-defence.  It _may_
(although I would doubt it) but the available data don't prove it.
So I disagree with your statement that ...
  
>If
>you use your gun for self-defense, it will probably be against someone
>you know.

"Use" by actually shooting someone, or "use" by deterring violence
without firing a shot?  There is a difference.  You then continue,

>Whether or not your actions are warranted will be an issue.

but the point is that it will be an issue addressed by the police,
a coroner and possibly a judge and jury as well as your own
conscience.  Simply claiming "self defence" will not automatically
clear you.

>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.  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.

All responsible shooters (like those who post here) advocate training.
Part of this training is always, "Identify your target".  Certainly,
none of us is proof against making a mistake, but in any activity 
we can only do our best.  Anecdotal evidence is that the more
experienced you are, the more cautious you become.

>  And, ironically, the NRA will cite
>you as yet another reason for everyone else to own a gun.

>People have bandied about a great many statistics about "successful"
>versus "unsuccessful" self-defense.  None of these statistics include
>the numerous cases where a man with a gun thought he was acting in
>self-defense, but wasn't.

How do you know they are "numerous"?  You admit in the next paragraph
that you don't have any statistics, but your argument is based on an
unsupported interpretation.  Also, and it's only a small point, but
why not "man or woman with a gun"?

>I don't have any statistics either, because it seems that the vast
>majority of defendants in homicide cases claim self-defense, and
>separating out the sincerely wrong from the liars would be difficult.

On the contrary, it is reasonably simple.  If there was an inquest,
you have the Coroner's verdict.  If the case went to trial, see whether they
were convicted or not.  The point is that if a plea of
self-defence was accepted it means that the judge and/or jury were
convinced that the claim was genuine.  If not, they weren't.

>But in many of these cases it seems to me that this claim is sincere,
>because most homicides have no planning whatsoever and arise from
>verbal arguments.

Again, supporting evidence?

>There are even many cases with celebrity status. For example[deleted]:

>No doubt most of you here will poo-poo this unhappy fate as an
>extremely remote possibility.  That might be acceptable as far as your
>personal business is concerned.  (Of course, if it turns out that you
>can't handle this responsibility, it will become everyone's business.)
>But if you're trying to persuade Mr. Kelly or me or anyone else that
>shooting the wrong man is a remote possibility in general, you ought to
>back it up with some actual facts.

It would seem to me that you are claiming that it is _not_ a
remote possibility but not bothering to look for the statistics to
justify your position.  I would have thought that if accidental
shootings in a mistaken belief of self-defence were a significant
proportion of shooting deaths then this would show up clearly in
the published statistics, whereas (a) it doesn't seem to, and (b)
the relative infrequency of such events is attested to by the fact
that when they _do_ occur they are newsworthy.

>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.

I can see why you want to remain anonymous, and I hope your family
appreciate the sacrifice you expect them to make for your principles.

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)