re: #31 Daniel Ballard

The answers you ask for are not found merely in the text of the law.

So where are they found? Not in the case history of how the law has been interpreted— you’ve already dismissed that.

We do have an implicit principle of who approaches who well established as a definition of self defense,

I don’t believe we do, no. If I approach someone, it does not in any way mitigate my right to defend myself if they attack me. Can you cite a law saying otherwise?

we have a dramatic gap in the available force to use,

Except, as I said, one of the dangers of being armed is that if someone takes the gun away from you, they are now armed. So, someone with a gun can make a reasonable claim that someone trying to take that gun— or who they perceive as trying to take that gun— has deadly intentions.

we have a real lack of evidence for important facts,

This isn’t relevant to the law itself, though.

we have a difference in the application and intent of the law.

Which, to me, points to the law being quite badly written, since the text of it does not match the supposed intent of the sponsors.

I am not sure that it really does mismatch, though. It would be hard to craft a bill that gives people the right to not flee that isn’t abuseable in this fashion. I don’t think it’s possible. If you write it so that there is an actual threat, rather than a perceived one— again, a person who is armed, being attacked by someone who isn’t, can reasonably argue that attack is quite a real, actual threat. That’s the problem with guns— they may work as a deterrent, but if they don’t, you have to use them or risk them being used on you.