Quick comment about a sentence in the news story:
I would argue that if the person with the gun is a 100-lb., 5'3" (45 kg, 1.6 m) woman and the person with the fists is a 200-lb., 6'3" (90 kg, 2 m) man who's looking for someone to rape, using the gun is hardly "disproportionate"!The new law even allows a disproportionate response; if someone comes at you with a fist, you can reply with a gun.
After all, a so-called "proportionate response" in such a case (that is, fist to fist) would almost certainly end with the woman being severely beaten and raped, even if she's a black belt in karate.
That's the theoretical rationale for making private gun ownership relatively simple -- a gun can help to balance the odds between a small, weak victim and a large, strong attacker, or between one victim and a whole gang of attackers.
P.S. With that point made, it's important to note that in this case, the shooter Zimmerman was about 45 kilos heavier than the victim Martin, who was unarmed and walking alone -- which makes the "reasonably felt threatened" defense rather less believable.



LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks




Reply With Quote

