# Legality of UW Shooting **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 23, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934 "2017-01-23T15:43:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/61 "2017-01-24T02:31:14Z")
What’s the opposite of a Mexican Standoff called ? When everyone draws in seconds and there’s no survivor. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/62 "2017-01-24T02:35:30Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > I’m not sure about the wisdom of a law which provides a defence for killing someone because you think he _might_ be about to kill you. That wisdom is pretty much the basis for all self-defense laws that allow lethal force. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/63 "2017-01-24T02:46:06Z")
Right. And the reason you think someone _might_ be about to kill you is because if you’re waving a gun around they’ll think you’re a dangerous maniac about to use deadly force against them, and so they will be justified in used deadly force against you, so that entitles you to use deadly force against them. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/64 "2017-01-24T02:52:41Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That wisdom is pretty much the basis for all self-defense laws that allow lethal force. But when you combine that rule with a rule affirming the right to keep and bear arms, the term you’re looking for is no longer “wisdom”. It’s “monumental stupidity”. You’ve designed a system which will tend to maximise the avoidable deaths of frequently innocent people. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/65 "2017-01-24T02:56:51Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > But when you combine that rule with a rule affirming the right to keep and bear arms, the term you’re looking for is no longer “wisdom”. It’s “monumental stupidity”. You’ve designed a system which will tend to maximise the avoidable deaths of frequently innocent people. It’s the system that’s been in place for most of the history of our country. I’ll note that “friendly fire” incidents like this one are a minuscule fraction of deaths, so as a system that’s supposed to tend to “maximise” the avoidable deaths, it’s either not very good at it, or the maximum is actually quite low. ETA: It strikes me about the same as a complaint against plainclothes / undercover police officers. A few of them occasionally get shot in cases of mistaken identity. One could say that allowing them, especially in environments where there will be other cops rushing in with guns, prepared to shoot any threat, is a mistake, perhaps even a “monumentally stupid” system designed to maximise the avoidable deaths of frequently innocent people. Society at large seemed to have judged that the utility / value / benefit of plainclothes & undercover police officers outweighs the risks (and frankly, the occasional tragic death), so we keep them around. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/66 "2017-01-24T03:00:38Z")
Yep, not a problem. If a bystander or toddler occasionally catches a bullet in the face, it’s a small price to pay. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/67 "2017-01-24T03:01:32Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It’s the system that’s been in place for most of the history of our country. I’ll note that “friendly fire” incidents like this one are a minuscule fraction of deaths, so as a system that’s supposed to tend to “maximise” the avoidable deaths, it’s either not very good at it, or the maximum is actually quite low. In your “miniscule fraction” are you also counting the cases where somebody pulls a gun and shoots somebody he mistakenly perceives as a threat, or who presents a threat which could have been dealt with by non-lethal means, had no gun been present? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/68 "2017-01-24T03:02:27Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Yep, not a problem. If a bystander or toddler occasionally catches a bullet in the face, it’s a small price to pay. Yup, and occasionally a toddler drowns in a pool, or falls out of a treehouse, but we haven’t banned those either yet. “small price to pay” sounds a bit callous, but that’s basically the value judgement of the society we live in. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/69 "2017-01-24T03:05:03Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > In your “miniscule fraction” are you also counting the cases where somebody pulls a gun and shoots somebody he mistakenly perceives as a threat, or who presents a threat which could have been dealt with by non-lethal means, had no gun been present? No, but mostly because it’s basically entirely subjective / impossible to know if the supposed threat could have successfully been dealt with by non-lethal means. Could the guy in Arizona that saved the cop have “dealt with” the bad guy by some less-lethal means? Perhaps, but there’s no way to know. Perhaps in attempting to do so, both he and the cop end up dead. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/70 "2017-01-24T03:18:00Z")
So we observe a law which affords a right to carry gunds, a law which protects people who use guns in circumstances where it may not have been necessary, a very high rate of gun fatalities in the US. I don’t think this is a coincidence. I respectfully suggest that if you have a law affirming a right to carry guns, you need to balance that with a law which puts the on the gun carrier to show that use of the gun is objectively justified. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/71 "2017-01-24T03:28:06Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > So we observe a law which affords a right to carry gunds, a law which protects people who use guns in circumstances where it may not have been necessary, a very high rate of gun fatalities in the US. I don’t think this is a coincidence. > > I respectfully suggest that if you have a law affirming a right to carry guns, you need to balance that with a law which puts the on the gun carrier to show that use of the gun is objectively justified. I respectfully disagree, and further note that the “very high rate of gun fatalities” has precious little to do with lawful defensive gun use. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/72 "2017-01-24T04:35:52Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > So we observe a law which affords a right to carry gunds, a law which protects people who use guns in circumstances where it may not have been necessary, a very high rate of gun fatalities in the US. I don’t think this is a coincidence. What you think is irrelevant. If the majority of gun deaths were due to people lawfully “protected” in using them during those homicides you’d have a point, but they aren’t so you don’t. Look at this 2012 report using FBI stats: [http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf](http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf) (PDF warning) In that year, 259 justified homicides with firearms compared to 8,342 criminal homicides. But clearly it’s those shooters protected by law driving up the deaths. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/73 "2017-01-24T07:07:45Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > What you think is irrelevant. If the majority of gun deaths were due to people lawfully “protected” in using them during those homicides you’d have a point, but they aren’t so you don’t. Look at this 2012 report using FBI stats: > > [http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf](http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf) (PDF warning) > > In that year, 259 justified homicides with firearms compared to 8,342 criminal homicides. But clearly it’s those shooters protected by law driving up the deaths. :smack: Interesting detail: 1/3 of victims in justifiable homicides were “known to shooter” > [@](#): > > In 2012, 35.5 percent (92 of 259) of persons killed in a firearm justifiable homicide were known to the shooter,6 51.4 percent (133) were strangers, and > in 13.1 percent (34) the relationship was unknown. For the five-year period 2008 through 2012, 32.9 percent (364 of 1,108) of persons killed in a firearm > justifiable homicide were known to the shooter, 56.0 percent (620) were strangers, and in 11.2 percent (124) the relationship was unknown. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/74 "2017-01-24T12:20:28Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Interesting detail: 1/3 of victims in justifiable homicides were “known to shooter” I’m not sure how interesting that detail is. In general, in the majority of \*criminal \*homicides or attempts the victim knew the assailant. I don’t have citable stats handy, but 1/3rd is probably not far off and I vaguely recall a much larger number, like 2/3rds. Given that fact, it’s also reasonable that a broadly similar fraction of defensive homicides would involve folks who know each other. Which demonstrates a big point often ignored by the gotta-carry-for-my-safety crowd. A hefty slice of your national statistical average of homicide risk is automatically avoided by not having friends and family who are criminals or the kind of hot-headed dumbasses that shoot people after drunken arguments. Frankly, another hefty fraction can be avoided by not being in the wrong SES demographic. And by being over about 30. If you can manage those three things, you’ve already cut your homicide risk to about 5% of the national “average”. And if you can’t manage those three things, then maybe carrying is a good idea because your personal risk is much higher than the national “average”. ---
**Author:** ![HumbleThinker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/75 "2017-01-24T13:53:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In Utah at least, one can “draw” “exhibit” or “threaten the use of” a firearm in response to “unlawful force” (not deadly force), but if one actually fires the weapon, that’s deadly force and can only be used when reasonably believed necessary to stop “death” “serious bodily injury” or one of the listed “forcible felonies”. Ah interesting. I didn’t realize there was that sort of variability in state laws. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934/76 "2017-01-24T15:43:43Z")
> [@HumbleThinker](#): > > Ah interesting. I didn’t realize there was that sort of variability in state laws. Yes, for another (possibly relevant to this incident) example, some states have “duty to retreat” laws, while most others have (now-infamous) “stand your ground” laws. [Utah is a stand your ground state](http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter2/76-2-S402.html). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-uw-shooting/777934.md?page=3)