re: #59 Daniel Ballard

And you expect I have absorbed all that enough to answer already? This afternoon?

To answer what?

Those too will be case by case.

I’m not sure what this means. Of course they’ll be case by case.

nd questions remain. How do we address and proportion the positive difference this law might have made out there?

I’m sure it may have made some positive differences. So would a law that allowed people to hunt down and shoot people. That’s not that relevant.

What of good proper outcomes that no one has complained about?

The difference between this law, and other self-defense laws, is it takes away the obligation to retreat if able.

I see no value, at all, in taking away that obligation, since retreat is always the best way to avoid being injured or killed, anyway.

I fully support the use of self-defense when unable to retreat, or when you’re responsible for others— children, an invalid wife— who can’t flee. But in those cases, I still don’t support the right to simply open fire, but the need to warn beforehand.

This is a perfectly reasonable position, and not some sort of crazy “I hate guns” position, and it’s getting really aggravating that it’s being treated as such.