From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:44:06 GMT

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.

       A great many arguments have erupted with the good Mr. Kelly.
So far, he's made exactly two points and failed to address and
questions put to him.

>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.

       It's odd that you rank this as the "greatest" risk involved.
I would think the "greatest" risk would be death.

       However, as far as self-defense goes, the other person is not
required to actually commit a crime, or even attempt to commit a
crime.  The requirement (in all the place I've lived) is that you
reasonably believe that your life is in danger from them.  This can
be difficult to prove in court, but that's the way the law works.

>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.

        Very true.  The only people to have threatened my life are
quite familiar to me.

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

        Both statistics and common sense tell us that you are far more
likely to have a reason to do harm to someone you know, and this works
both ways.  Most people, even murderers, have a tough time learning to
hate someone enough to kill them without having met them before.

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

        In point of fact, even if the other person is demonstrably a
criminal and there is no question as to whether your life was in danger
your life is very likely to stink, especially if you are unlucky enough
to live in places like New York or Chicago.
        Just because you were right doesn't mean you won't be bankrupted
defending yourself, even successfully, against a murder charge from an
overzealous DA who has nothing to lose.  And when you do win, you'll have
a murder charge on your record forever, and usually that's enough.

>If you reach the point of fatally shooting
>your acquaintance, you will go to prison.

        Excuse me, but knowing somebody does not prove they have no
criminal intent.  Two individuals of my acquaintance have attempted to
do me serious bodily harm very much on purpose.

>You will live with the guilt
>of extinguishing an innocent life.

        Let's try again:  Because I know somebody when they attack me
doesn't mean they weren't threatening my life or a criminal.  Hell, just
because my family is close knit and loving doesn't make that universal.
Criminals have families, as well, and usually don't get along with them
any better than they do the rest of humanity.

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

       Let me guess.  You weren't particularly interested in whether
the NRA was anti-gay, you were just trying to pin something one it.  Now
that the readership of this group has failed to stand up like good little
rednecks and condemn gays, you're trying a diffirent tactic.

>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.

         "Numerous" is a fairly innaccurate way to put things.  Exactly
what would you suggest is the number?  Given the number is somewhere
between 80,000 and 1,000,000 it's fairly likely and percentage
qualifies as "numerous."

>I don't have any statistics either,

       It never occured to me that you might.  I wonder why.

>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.

        No, am not aware that the vast majority of homicide defendants
claim self-defense.  I've never seen it broken down.  Upon what are
you basing your assumption?

>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, upon what are you basing your assumption?

>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.

        I am not aware of the facts of this case, so I can't make
any comment as to whether he had reason to believe this.  It is
possible, you know, to have good reason to believe someone is
intending to harm you, perhaps kill you, when that is in fact not
the case.  That is a judgement that can only be made on specific
circumstances.

>Brando is not the only example.

        Dealing with numbers of instances or a long period of time
it would be ludicrous to suggest that he was.  Please provide some
basis for the belief that they are a majority, or even a statistically
significant.

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

        It's a good idea to know what you are shooting at and why.

>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.

        Somehow, Mr. anon.526, an admonition to back up my opinions with
facts coming from someone who has repeatedly failed, indeed refused, to
produce *any* evidence to support his position doesn't carry much
wieght.

>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 do not quarrel with your right to place yourself in
jeapardy in order to avoid killing another human being.  In a way
this is a very admirable position.  Further, it is entirely your
decision as to whether to use deadly force in the defense of others.
But please remember, Mr. anon.526, that you can only make that
decleration for yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu