From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:33:11 GMT



<In article <1it58vINNgbq@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

	Previously it has been thought that anon.526 was the
	multiple personality known as Susan/Kylie/etc.

	However, this posting style resembles the other
	personality from Oz which identified itself as
	"David Bowman". 

<   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.

	Given that the majority of with-gun defenses occur
	with *NO* shots fired, this concern is not nearly
	as great as anon.526 asserts. See Kleck's work for
	details.

<   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.  If
<   you use your gun for self-defense, it will probably be against someone
<   you know.  

	And, as has been pointed out on this group many times,
	"someone you know" may include a physically abusive 
	spouse who is trying to kill you, a local thug widely
	known in the community, etc.

<Whether or not your actions are warranted will be an issue.
	
	However, given the fact that the majority of with-gun
	defenses do not involve shots fired, as Professor
	Kleck noted, this may or may not be an issue. If the
	"someone you know" is a neighborhood thug who broke
	into your house and ran out the door when confronted
	by an armed householder, "warranted" will probably
	not be an issue.

<  But if you actually are facing a criminal, you may not have time to
<   think about it.  

	If you walk around in Condition White, that is true. 

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

	However, given that most with gun defenses do not involve
	shots fired, this is not a great danger. Given that pistol
	wounds are generally survivable (Ayoob has claimed the odds
	are around 75% survival rate) this is not a great danger.

<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.

	Given that the majority of with-gun defenses involve no
	shots fired, it should come as no surprise that these 
	cases are not cited.

<   I don't have any statistics either, 

	Nor does anon.526 have much of an argument.

<because it seems that the vast
<majority of defendants in homicide cases claim self-defense, 

	Citation, please? I would be interested to know if this
	is true or not.

<and
<separating out the sincerely wrong from the liars would be difficult.
 
	Juries are intended for this.

<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.  

	Citation, please? This assertions truth will obviously vary
	from culture to culture; there are places in the world
	where many homicides are the result of careful planning.

<There are even many cases with celebrity status.
<For example:
<Christian Brando shot and killed his sister's ex-boyfriend Dag Drollet
<in the erroneous belief that Drollet was about to harm him or his
<family.
<Brando is not the only example.

<   No doubt most of you here will poo-poo this unhappy fate as an
<   extremely remote possibility.  

	It is part of the responsibility of owning a firearm,
	just as the possibility of running over a small child
	is part of the responsibility of owning a motor vehicle.

	Careful people plan in such a way as to minimize the risk
	of such unfortunate events.
	
<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.

	Anon.526 posts line after line of pure unsupported assertion,
	then demands actual facts.

<   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.

	Did you buy a fire extinguisher yet, Bowman?