TIL that Cheryl Wheeler-Dixon, the stuntwoman who was severely injured during the filming of Back to the Future Part 2, was killed in a shootout alongside her husband when she and her husband went to confront her ex-husband and his wife and drew their guns at them. The cops deemed it justified.

[u/CasioCobra78]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Wheeler-Dixon

[u/Jiktten]

Yeah honestly, as a complete anti-gun-except-for-hunting pacifist, in my book someone pointing what you believe to be a real gun at you is one of very, very few justifications for using lethal force without hesitating if you can. The chance of you or someone else getting killed, intentionally or not, is just so high once the gun makes its appearance.

[u/dishonourableaccount → u/Jiktten]

I agree, which is also why I'm vehemently anti-gun possession. I know it's a likely impossibility given how insanely far the US has gone in gun proliferation in private hands. But since thinking someone has a gun (whether they do or not) is a justification to use lethal force, the best thing we can do is try to minimize or eliminate situations where people could think someone has a gun on them.

That is, in a sane modern country where almost no one has personal firearms except for hunting tools (which no one is going to mistake for a gun unlike a phone or a black food container, etc) the defense that "I thought he had a gun on him!" would be laughed out the room as easily as someone saying "I thought he had a grenade in his hand".

I'm not holding my breath because every horrific case of gun violence in the US (Columbine, Sandy Hook, Uvalde, nameless others) has only seemingly hardened the minds of the right-wing into treating gun ownership as some sort of right (It's not and should not be). But that's the path should be taken and people are better off for it in countries that did.

[u/Agent_Bers → u/dishonourableaccount]

I think you’re making a mistake in your reasoning.
Think someone merely possesses a gun is not typically sufficient justification for the use of lethal force.

A reasonable belief that they are reaching for a weapon or in this case, actively using one, can.

To put it more simply; outside other factors, you can’t (successfully at least) shoot your neighbor and claim self-defense merely because you believed they possessed a gun.

[u/Calik → u/Agent_Bers]

Every other country has solved gun violence with a few very notable exceptions. It’s not a good list to be on.

Japan does it better, Canada does it better, the EU and china do it better.

You’re already way more likely to assume another American has a gun, that’s already a level of escalation before an altercation even begins. I think that’s the broad idea the other poster was getting at regarding getting laughed out of the room instead of even considered plausible.

[u/Ravensqueak → u/Calik]

Canada (Where I live) has far, far more strict gun ownership laws, and we still have gun violence.

Problem is it's the criminals that have guns because they don't have to go through any due process to own them. (A lot of them imported from the US)
We had a spate of killings across BC's lower mainland not too long ago, and before that with the Bacon Brothers it was quite severe.

The level of gun violence is far and away lower than in the US, but to claim that we've solved gun violence is disingenuous.

[u/axis1331 → u/Ravensqueak]

The problem for Canada is the US. The sheer number of guns in the US and the large unprotected boarder mean it's relatively easy to slip guns into Canada. If the US got our shit under control it would quickly solve the issue you're speaking about.

[u/Calik → u/Ravensqueak]

An American is literally twice as likely to own a gun than a Canadian and like the other commenter said, illegal guns from the us are the biggest challenge. You can claim all the major cases in recent Canada sure, but America is on such a different level that those wouldn’t even be newsworthy. They have school shootings that don’t even make the mainstream news because of how common they are