Amazing and Cunning New Anti Argument

[cmj685]

There seems to be no end to the cunning attacks on the second amendment by antis. Here is the latest, posted today by a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in the Star Tribune. The argument is shrewd beyond words...he encourages everyone to leave the whole 2nd amendment fight behind and insist that states override the right to use a firearm by defining the reasons to use deadly force (i.e. firearms) out of existence.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... ectionName

By PAUL H. ROBINSON
PHILADELPHIA - A narrowly divided Supreme Court ruled last month that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to keep a loaded gun at home for their personal use. Presumably, citizens can use these weapons to defend themselves from intruders. But given the growing effectiveness and availability of less lethal weapons, it is likely that state laws will increasingly keep people from actually using their guns for self-defense.

The states impose carefully defined limitations on the use of deadly force in self-defense. (These rules are fairly uniform, state to state; most are based on the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code of 1962.) A person may use only as much force as is "immediately necessary." If a less lethal means of defense is available, the use of deadly force is illegal. Firearms are by law deadly force. (The police are given somewhat greater authority to use force, even aggressive force.)

Guns have been considered a primary weapon for self-defense. But now there are nonlethal alternatives -- some not yet on the market -- that can quickly disable an attacker even more reliably than a firearm can.

The best known of these are Tasers, handgun-shaped devices that fire a dart that delivers a painful electrical shock. A hit from a Taser causes an instant muscular spasm that can disable any attacker, no matter how determined. And the Taser works no matter where on the attacker's body the dart hits. A bullet, in contrast, instantly disables only if it hits a couple of vulnerable spots, like the space between the eyes. A shot to the arm, the leg or even the torso may not stop an attacker.

A Taser works only within a limited distance, up to 35 feet for advanced models. But most firearm confrontations are at less than 10 feet. More important, the legal limitations on self-defense typically do not allow use of force at a distance. Defensive force is considered "immediately necessary" only when the defender can wait no longer, when the threat is "imminent."

Newer kinds of handheld weapons that are less lethal than guns -- many already in prototype -- may be even more effective than Tasers. These include light lasers, designed to blind temporarily, and microwave beams that instantly cause the skin to feel as if it is on fire but cause no lasting harm.

Of course, anyone who uses a gun in self-defense may argue that he would have used a less lethal weapon if he had had one at hand, but there was only the firearm. The problem with this argument is that the limited option is the person's choice, and the law may not be blind to that choice.

If you are a surgeon and you leave your glasses behind on the way to the operating room, then botch a delicate procedure, you can't convince a judge that the resulting death wasn't your fault because you couldn't see well. If, on your way to confront an intruder, you choose your gun rather than your more effective but less lethal weapon, you can hardly complain later about your limited options.

Similarly, when a person shops for a weapon of self-defense, anticipating some day a confrontation with an attacker, his choice of a gun over something less lethal but more effective is a choice to limit his options in a confrontation.

Should we worry that by expecting people to use only nonlethal weapons in self-defense we would sacrifice our personal autonomy and safety? No. On the contrary, personal autonomy would be even more vigilantly protected.

The reason for this is a second limitation on the use of defensive force, what might be called the "proportionality" requirement. Typically, a defender can lawfully use deadly force only to prevent death, rape, kidnapping or bodily injury serious enough to cause long-term loss or impairment of a body part or organ. But a nondeadly weapon can be used to defend against any threat of unlawful force.

As effective less-than-lethal weapons proliferate, the laws of self-defense may ultimately relegate last week's court decision to the status of an odd little opinion, one that works mainly to ensure some special constitutional status for gunpowder technology. Gun collectors will be fond of it, but for most of society, it will have little practical effect.

Paul H. Robinson, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, is the author, most recently, of "Law Without Justice: Why Criminal Law Doesn't Give People What They Deserve." He wrote this article for the New York Times.

[Pat Cannon]

I sent the Strib a letter to the editor. Like all letters to the editor, they might not print it because its persuasiveness is so awesome that they know it would brilliantly expose as hypocritical sophistry a position they sympathize with, thus in one stroke crumbling civilization as they know it.

This is regarding the July 5th Commentary by Paul H. Robinson headlined "Who needs to shoot in self-defense when they can stun?"

Yes, I agree it would be nice if we could prevent crime without hurting anybody. So let's assume for the sake of argument that the perfect stun-gun exists, i.e. it never fails (unlike the taser or pepper spray), it never kills anybody (unlike the taser), it would be compact enough to carry everywhere and would be effective against multiple attackers.

This perfect defense weapon (basically the Star Trek phaser set to 'stun'), would have at least one crippling drawback to my mind: it would be an inadequate deterrent. No, I wouldn't enjoy a tasering, but I'd risk that way before risking a .357 in the face.

This lack of deterrence might be OK if the perpetrator of an armed robbery or attempted rape were reliable sentenced to dozens of real prison years, but we all know it doesn't work that way.

[nyffman]

Good letter. And, you're probably right, makes to much sense to make the cut. I don't read the letters in the Star and sickle too often. Let us know if they print it.

[Srigs]

Interesting argument but flawed in a number of ways.
1. Mutiple attackers the Taser would not work.
2. Pepper spray does not work a % of the time.
3. The Taser will kill a % of the people it hits.
4. People who choose guns do not put a restriction on what you can use to protect yourself. You can use pepper spray, taser or bat if you choose to. This would eliminated guns as a way to protect yourself.

With Heller any state that tried it would not meet the hurdle that it throws down.

[TC95GT]

Interesting argument but flawed in a number of ways.
1. Mutiple attackers the Taser would not work.
2. Pepper spray does not work a % of the time.
3. The Taser will kill a % of the people it hits.
4. People who choose guns do not put a restriction on what you can use to protect yourself. You can use pepper spray, taser or bat if you choose to. This would eliminated guns as a way to protect yourself.

STOP with logic. It just clouds the agenda.....errr I mean discussion.

As far as less than lethal self defense goes I'm already doing my part by carrying a 9mm. Sorry I couldnt resist.

[gunflint]

If an attacker has a gun wouldn't then defending yourself with a gun be considered "as much force as immediately necessary?" Besides more states are leaning towards a castle doctrine type of defensive use than a limiting type. This professor is living in academia not the real world.

[hammAR]

Professor Robinson's favorite poster:

[R.E.T.]

I like the microwave radar defense. A 4 foot by 6 foot antenna with an attached running generator. So practical and easy to use.

[JohninMinnesota]

The reason for this is a second limitation on the use of defensive force, what might be called the "proportionality" requirement. Typically, a defender can lawfully use deadly force only to prevent death, rape, kidnapping or bodily injury serious enough to cause long-term loss or impairment of a body part or organ. But a nondeadly weapon can be used to defend against any threat of unlawful force.

At what point, when someone is threatening to use any kind of force to impose their will on a person, be it a gangsta, thug or a young mother in her automobile, is the use of force not justifiable to resist the aggressor? And as such, why do we limit people's ability to choose to use deadly force should they decide it is necessary? They should only get one time to "screw up", but who are we to put another's life in jeopardy based on our arm-chair laws created to make people "safe"?

[1911fan]

When he can guarantee to one hundred percent certainty that I will never face a criminal with a gun, only criminals with a taser, then I will carry a taser.


first rule of gunfighting (amended) Never bring a Taser to a gun fight....

His lack of logic is astounding.

[TC95GT]

But now there are nonlethal alternatives -- some not yet on the market -- that can quickly disable an attacker even more reliably than a firearm can.

Not only can they disable an attacker but you can use them on almost anyone. You could disable your wife for instance.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jul/07 ... y-assault/

Deputy Used Stun Gun On Wife, Hillsborough Sheriff's Office Says
Article

By JOSH POLTILOVE | The Tampa Tribune

Published: July 7, 2008

Updated: 10:00 am

TAMPA - A Hillsborough County deputy was arrested this morning after he used a Taser three to four times on his wife and placed a semiautomatic gun against her left temple, deputies say.

About 6:15 p.m. Sunday, Carlos Thomas Tanner, who had been drinking, got into an altercation with his wife of 12 years, Kristine, a sheriff's office news release states. He pushed her onto a bed, then took a Taser from his Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office duty belt and used the weapon on her stomach, causing Taser burns.

Then he set aside the Taser and got his service revolver – a silver semiautomatic gun – from underneath the mattress, according to the release. He placed the gun against his wife's temple for about 10 seconds, it states.

His wife went to a friend's home, and law enforcement was contacted. She did not need to go to a hospital, sheriff's spokeswoman Debbie Carter said.

Tanner, a 10-year veteran who works in District 2, was arrested about 1:45 a.m. in Dover and charged with felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and misdemeanor battery-domestic violence.

Tanner, who remained in Orient Road Jail this morning, declined to comment about the incident.

His bail had not been set.

Tanner, 38, was placed on administrative leave without pay, and an administrative review was pending.

[ttousi]

Then he set aside the Taser and got his service revolver – a silver semiautomatic gun

Gotta love the mis-informed media...........I have come to expect this type of reporting and am astounded when they are accurate.

[Spearhead]

"microwave beams" I think not

[Ramoel]

I'd love to have a Star Trek type of gun that could be set for stun or kill. I plan to purchase one as soon as they are available.

Until then, I guess I'm stuck with an old fashioned gunpowder type of weapon.