Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!harpo!eagle!mhuxi!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
From: preece@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Handguns for Criminals ONLY! - (nf)
Message-ID: <3298@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Oct-83 23:49:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3298
Posted: Mon Oct 17 23:49:07 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Oct-83 22:04:36 EDT
Lines: 30

#R:alberta:-49200:uicsl:5400037:000:1481
uicsl!preece    Oct 17 08:59:00 1983

	I guess that some people don't see any difference between a person who
	entered a home for the express purpose of committing a crime,
	and of people who were UNWITTING passengers on a jet that may or
	may not have been off course deliberately.  It's easy to justify not
	shooting the latter, while it's harder to justify NOT shooting the
	former (or using non-deadly force if the situation permits).
----------
[The context of the above was a comparison of the morality of shooting an
intruder in your home with the shooting down of KAL 007.]

The problem with jj's statement is that it assumes the shooter is aware of
the identity and motives of the intruder.  It is becoming increasingly
clear that the Soviet forces did not know that KAL 007 was a passenger
plane full of unwitting passengers, but knew only that it was an unknown,
possibly hostile intruder in their airspace. I can see no distinction
whatever between their action and shooting an intruder in your home.
But, you say, I can assume an intruder is a bad guy but the Russians
should assume an intruder is a navigation accident. Maybe the probabilities
work that way, but remember the Soviets' see a possibly very high cost
to a successful intrusion. For that matter, haven't many of you said that
one is permitted to defend oneself when one FEELS threatened?

Remember, I'm not defending the Soviet action, I'm saying its small scale
equivalent isn't defensible, either.

scott preece
pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece