Tim Lambert wrote: > Here we go again. Just like in the Tony Martin case, the version of > the story propgated by pro-gunners omits the facts that show that the > killing was not done in self defence.
That may or may not be true in this case, and it of course isn't shocking for advocates on any side of a cause to jump eagerly on any case that seems to confirm their preconceptions. But in the Tony Martin case, there is virtually no plausible construction of the facts that I think many (pro-gun and other) Americans would find to contradict the notion that the killing was justifiable self-defense. We've been over this on the list before, and I don't want to really get it started again. My only point here is that the dispute in the Tony Martin case is philosophical, and not one which can be resolved merely by pointing to a different understanding of the facts. Even given Tim Lambert's take on the facts, or the prosecutions take on the facts, the Tony Martin shooting was a good shoot, from a moral point of view, and in accordance with the law in at least most American jurisdictions. --Jimbo _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
