Hello Jeff.   
      
   01 Nov 17 18:16, you wrote to me:   
      
    >> But, at the time, if you had a gun with you, how could you defend   
    >> yourself? He had your back, with a knife stuck to your neck.   
      
    JS> If I had been carrying a handgun. Would I have used it to defend my   
    JS> girlfriend and/or myself? That depends on the situation. Having a gun   
    JS> doesn't and shouldn't mean IMHO that it should and has to be used. I   
    JS> look at use of a handgun as a last resort action. Would I use a   
    JS> handgun to retain the $45 that I had? No I would not. Would I have   
    JS> used a handgun to prevent the immanent death of either my girlfriend   
    JS> or myself? Yes I would have.   
      
           As I said before, I come from a different reality. The bad guys   
           south of the Equator have no value for human life... If they   
           notice that you have a gun, even if you don't reach for it,   
           they will kill you immediately.   
      
           A short Google research will show you that almost 90% of the 128   
           police officers killed in Rio de Janeiro (where I live) throughout   
           2017 were off-duty and used their own weapons to defend themselves.   
      
    >> I couldn't agree with you more. I live in Brazil, and here, to own a   
    >> gun, you need to undergo a Kafkianesque bureaucracy that would raise   
    >> a few eyebrows of communist-time Russians.   
      
    JS> There are nightmarish bureaucracies here also. It makes me wonder   
    JS> sometimes how the government can actually get a task actually done.   
    JS> But that's a topic to be discussed elsewhere.   
      
           Agreed.   
      
    >> Nevertheless, the drug dealers and all sorts of bad guys have access   
    >> to the state of the art on weaponry.   
      
    JS> Sadly, that is all too true. Criminals never seem to have trouble   
    JS> acquiring weapons of their choice. Regardless of what currently in   
    JS> place gun laws there  may be.I am not of the mind that we should let   
    JS> things become a  "My gun's bigger than yours" mentality.   
      
           Recently the local FBI here found out a huge stash of AR-15s   
           hidden into a shipment of pool filters.   
      
    JS> As you may be aware we had a recent shooting event here that killed   
    JS> quite a few people and injured many others. It seems that modified   
    JS> automatic weapons were used to comit the crime. This event aparently   
    JS> executed by a man with no previous criminal history. He simply used   
    JS> his wealth to buy and modify what weapons he thought necessary to   
    JS> carry out his deadly deeds.   
      
           Yes, and despite all efforts and regulations, I simply can't   
           think of a way to prevent that. There could be some kind of   
           punishment for adapting a firearm to full auto setting, but   
           how would you enforce such a thing? That's just crazy.   
      
    JS> We could easily exchange a number of horror stories involving mass   
    JS> deaths. The point as I see it is would banning gun ownership prevent   
    JS> such events from happening in the future?   
      
           Not a chance. As I said before, here in Brazil we have a kafkian   
           bureaucracy to procure and purchase weapons and even though we do   
           have school shootings. Much less than in the US, of course, but   
           they DO happen.   
      
    JS> In checking I see about 39 law enfocement officers were killed in the   
    JS> line of duty by gunfire in the last year nationwide.   
      
           We have reached the 120 line already just in 2017 here in Rio alone.   
      
    >> Even if I have a gun at home to protect my family, if someone breaks   
    >> into my house and I eventually shoot and kill the guy, I'll be in   
    >> deep trouble   
      
    JS> Here the legal process is usually considerably quicker. As people are   
    JS> able to act in self defense if necessary. And only use deadly force as   
    JS> a last resort.   
      
    JS> Force used in self defense that is likely to cause death or great   
    JS> bodily harm  is justified only if a person reasonably thinks that such   
    JS> force is necessary  to prevent death or great bodily harm.   
      
    JS> Here there is also a Stand-Your-Ground law (sometimes called "line in   
    JS> the sand"   
      
    JS> or "no duty to retreat" law). It is a justification in a criminal   
    JS> case, whereby   
      
    JS> a defendant can "stand their ground" and use force without retreating,   
    JS> in order   
      
    JS> to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or   
    JS> perceived threats.   
      
    JS> An example is where there is no duty to retreat from any place where   
    JS> they have  a lawful right to be, and that they may use any level of   
    JS> force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of   
    JS> being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or   
    JS> death. One case describes "the 'stand your ground' law... a person has   
    JS> a right to expect absolute safety in a place they have a right to be,   
    JS> and may use deadly force to repel an unlawful intruder.   
      
           And that's absolutely correct.   
      
           Recently a local celebrity was in a hotel to perform a photo   
           shooting session for some advertisement campaign and a crazy   
           fellow managed to break into her room and took her, her secretary   
           and her brother as hostages.   
      
           He held them at gunpoint, and he was complaining that she never   
           called him back and was really angry, typical classic fan nutjob.   
      
           He was about to shoot the celebrity in the head when her brother   
           tried to take his gun and they started fighting for it. At the end   
           her brother managed to get the handgun and shot the assailant   
           three times.   
      
           Guess what happened? He is being trialed for murder, because if   
           it would have been self-defense he would have shot only once.   
      
    JS> There is the possible position that the criminally minded people there   
    JS> are comfortable in the feeling that they can comit their crimes   
    JS> without  the fear of their victums being able to effectively defend   
    JS> themselves.   
      
           Add to that mix a poorly managed judicial system with badly paid   
           police officers and you have a nightmare... One that I live into   
           every day.   
      
   Flavio   
      
   ... "Alface: "todas as caras" em InglÂs" - Dkg   
   --- MacFidoIP 1.0 (OSX)   
    * Origin: Hyperion's Orbit - Resisting since 1995! (4:801/189.1)