Re:Gaspard, the anti-assault accessory: never be alone again
by hga on Friday October 03, 2014 @02:53PM
(#8406998)
Neither, I keep it in a handy, hidden location, where if I'm not at it, is close to my path to the door. It is however traditional in this area to keep one or more guns by your door.
I'd like to think the risk of killing an innocent is negligible. I'm neither morally or legally allowed to use lethal force unless I (technically a "reasonable person" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) believe I'm being threatened with lethal force and that's the best option.
My above testimony should be ample evidence that I realize the terrible responsibilities and consequences of using lethal force; I am therefore necessarily hesitant to do so, specifically my threshold is set high to avoid ambiguity. In my case, not having any dependents, and living with someone who's also capable of defending himself, I'm willing to take a certain degree of risk to avoid using lethal force on an innocent.
In this vague hypothetical, I might instead retreat into my house, perhaps warning the possible assailant that I'm armed and don't want to have to shoot him. Someone who (continues to) advance in the face of that (not to mention entering a dwelling with a strong anti-invitation) could be judged a threat.
Although not necessarily a lethal one, but if someone continues to advance on a visibly armed man, the man can at some point presume the one advancing intends to take the gun away, thereby posing a lethal threat. And all this leaves out whatever that person is saying, all part of his demeanor which one uses in judging his intent.
I'd like to think the risk of killing an innocent is negligible. I'm neither morally or legally allowed to use lethal force unless I (technically a "reasonable person" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) believe I'm being threatened with lethal force and that's the best option.
My above testimony should be ample evidence that I realize the terrible responsibilities and consequences of using lethal force; I am therefore necessarily hesitant to do so, specifically my threshold is set high to avoid ambiguity. In my case, not having any dependents, and living with someone who's also capable of defending himself, I'm willing to take a certain degree of risk to avoid using lethal force on an innocent.
In this vague hypothetical, I might instead retreat into my house, perhaps warning the possible assailant that I'm armed and don't want to have to shoot him. Someone who (continues to) advance in the face of that (not to mention entering a dwelling with a strong anti-invitation) could be judged a threat.
Although not necessarily a lethal one, but if someone continues to advance on a visibly armed man, the man can at some point presume the one advancing intends to take the gun away, thereby posing a lethal threat. And all this leaves out whatever that person is saying, all part of his demeanor which one uses in judging his intent.