From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:08:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.060623.4197@news.acns.nwu.edu> query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>	I was not specifically discussing the lega ramifications to using a
>handgun for self defense.  I was expressing that the peorson using a gun
>had DAMN well better make sure that killing an attacker is acceptable.

Actually, Green wasn't expressing that.  The previous article stated that
one shouldn't carry unless one was intending to kill, which is different
than willing to kill.

>  I am merely saying that if you carry a gun, and you intend to use it
>in your defense, it is best not to even think about what you will do if the
>attacker runs, but to think about how to respond if they do not flee.

I'm pointing out that you have to do BOTH, because the appropriate
response depends on whether they continue the attack or break it off.

>		If you draw a gun on someone, then you had damn well
>better mean business.

In addition to wearing the suit, you better know what the biz is.

>Think of it as this:  You have a gun to kill, and only by good luck will it
>not be used.  

It isn't luck at all.  The attacker can break off the attack.

>	Deadly force...  That force which is used to cause death or great
>bodily harm.  Such force is only to be used as a last resort, when all
>other means have failed.

No, it isn't a "last resort".  You don't have to wait until he's
drawn blood.  You don't always have to retreat.  (You certainly
don't have to retreat if that endangers you, and usually not if
it endangers others.)

>less deadly means of defense, or
>the attacker has a weapon classified in the deadly force group.

The attacker's "weapon", or lack thereof, is often irrelevant.
(Interestingly enough, cotton balls have qualified as deadly weapons.)

>Essentially, what this says to me is that a gun is
>only to be used for purposes of dealing death.

No, it says lethal force is only appropriate to stop certain
attacks.

>	Sorry to rant, but, there are a lot of people out there that wave
>guns around and do not understand that a gun was designed to kill, not
>disarm, not injure, not permanantly maim, but to KILL. 

Why should they understand something that isn't true?

Guns are designed to propel projectiles.  If typical handguns were
designed to kill, they'd be different in a number of ways.  (Heck,
even RIFLES, including the M-16, would be different if they were
designed as Green asserts.)  The self-defense cartridges are designed
to stop; if they were designed to kill, they'd be different.  (If you
don't understand the difference between killing and stopping ....)

Surely an expert like Green understands that there's a difference
between the design goals of the gun designer and the design goals
associated with a particular cartridge, and they exist even when
different cartridges, with different design goals, can be used in the
same gun.

>	Again, you cannot take the issue too seriously.

That's a curious assertion from someone who doesn't know relevant
details, or at least doesn't care enough to accurately state them.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu