Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
From: preece@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Missing Handgun - (nf)
Message-ID: <2975@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Sep-83 22:52:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2975
Posted: Fri Sep 23 22:52:28 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Sep-83 21:37:34 EDT
Lines: 43

#R:ccieng5:-14700:uicsl:4300070:000:2303
uicsl!preece    Sep 23 10:22:00 1983

Karl Kleinpaste recounts a harrowing episode he feels could have been
avoided had he only had his .357 available. He also worries that we may
not believe his story.

I'm perfectly willing to believe his story, but I don't think it's a
good argument for having a handgun around the house. Since the
man was subdued/avoided without the use of a gun, it clearly was
possible to do so; why, then, inject even the threat of deadly force?
Suppose you had a gun and had had the foresight to take it with you
while protecting the woman. Several possibilities come to mind. The man
might have seen you, gone in and gotten his gun, and zapped you from
ambush. Or, if you met and the threat of the gun had kept him from
attacking you, what is to stop him from going off and getting his gun, etc.?
Would you have used the threat of shooting to keep him in one place?
In every way your pulling a gun would have escalated the incident from
mayhem to possible murder. That's inappropriate. IF you thought there
was a possibility of violence at the beginning of the incident, when you
would have gotten out your gun, you should have called the police at
that point. That's what we pay them for. If you didn't think there was
a threat of violence, you wouldn't have gotten out your gun.

EVEN IF we accepted your claim that a gun would have helped in this
situation, so what? For any such case there are dozens where a gun
would have made things worse. Many of which involve people who are to
all advance indications perfectly reasonable, rational people suitable,
under 'reasonable' rules for licensing. I have no reason to think the man
you had to fight off would not have been every bit as licenseable as you
seem to think you are. In almost every case the availability of a gun
makes a minor incident a serious one.

As to the particular incident in question, though, I think we should
all commend you for behaving in a civilized and socially responsible
manner in defending your neighbor. I hope I would do as well. If you
had used a gun (and from your descriptions the man might not have been
rational enough to react to it), I wouldn't be able to say that. Instead
I'd be saying to my wife, "How curious, one of my net correspondents is
in jail for shooting somebody..."

scott preece
pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece