The Modern Pistol and How to Shoot It

by Walter Winans

To show how strict the law is, it may be added that the killing of vermin, which, as above mentioned, is allowed without a license does not include rabbits.

As the penalty is £10 for carrying firearms without a license, I have thought it advisable to enlarge somewhat fully on the above topic.

There are also various penalties and punishments which may be imposed upon persons misbehaving while in the possession of loaded firearms, or wantonly discharging them. Thus any one who is in possession of a loaded firearm and is found to be drunk, may be apprehended, and is liable to a penalty not exceeding 40/, or, in the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for not more than one month.

Then, any person who in the streets of a town wantonly discharges any firearm to the obstruction, annoyance, or danger of the residents or passengers, is liable to a penalty not exceeding 40/ for each offence, or, in the discretion of the justices, to imprisonment for not more than fourteen days (no hard labour).

It is hardly necessary to say that the wrongful use of a revolver as an offensive weapon is very heavily punished, it being provided that any one who shoots at a person or attempts, by drawing a trigger or in any other manner, to discharge any kind of loaded arms at a person with intent to commit murder, is guilty of felony and liable to penal servitude for life, or any less term, or to imprisonment for not more than two years with or without hard labour and solitary confinement.

Again, any one who unlawfully and maliciously wounds, or causes any grievous bodily harm to any person, or who shoots at any person, or who by drawing a trigger or in any other manner attempts to discharge any kind of loaded arms at a person, with intent in any of these cases to maim, disfigure, or disable any person, or to do some other grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, is liable to penal servitude for life or for not less than three years or to imprisonment for not more than two years with or without hard labour and solitary confinement. “Loaded arms” are defined as “any gun, pistol, or other arms which shall be loaded in the barrel with gunpowder or any other explosive substance, and ball, shot, slug, or other destructive material, although the attempt to discharge the same may fail for want of proper priming, or from any other cause.” Finally, any one who unlawfully and maliciously wounds or inflicts any grievous bodily harm upon any person with or without any weapon or instrument, is liable to penal servitude for three years, or to imprisonment for not more than two years with or without hard labour. The words “unlawfully and maliciously” are difficult to construe, and therefore it may be well to state that a man who fired in the direction of a punt, in order to deter the occupant from fowling in a particular locality, and wounded him in so doing, was convicted of malicious wounding; and generally that if a wound were to be caused mischievously and without excuse the person who inflicted it would probably be found guilty under this enactment.

So much for the strict offences caused by the improperly carrying or making use of revolvers. Before, however, leaving this subject it will be advisable to enter at a little length into the rights which any one has of using a revolver in self-defence, or in some other analogous manner. Supposing a man has passed through the ordeal of the Gun License Act and is properly and legally carrying a loaded revolver, in what cases of emergency would he be justified in using it? Well, this is a very difficult question to answer, and one which in each event would depend entirely on the circumstances of the particular case. It is therefore impossible for me to lay down any exact principles governing every event of the kind which might happen, and I will content myself with stating a few hypothetical instances and what course of conduct might be adopted in each instance.

There is no doubt on this point, anyhow,—that one is justified in using a loaded revolver in self-defence, where an attack of such a murderous character is made as to threaten one’s own existence, or the infliction of serious bodily harm; and, if the assailant should be killed, yet the using of the revolver and so disposing of him would be deemed as having been justifiable. The same rule would apply to shooting an assassin who was attempting to kill someone else. For instance, if while standing on a railway platform I were to see a man shooting at someone in a railway carriage, and at such distance that I could not actively interfere except by shooting, I should be right in firing at the assailant, and though my shot should prove fatal, still no blame could be attached to me.

How far one is justified in using a revolver in beating off or capturing burglars in one’s house is, as already mentioned, a matter which can only be decided by the facts of the particular case. Assuredly where a man is awakened in the night by the noise of burglars breaking into or already in his house, and seizes his revolver and confronts the robbers, he would be justified in firing if the robbers threatened to attack him, and it is assumed that he would also be right in firing at a robber making off with booty who refused to stop when challenged to do so, if there were no reasonable chance of arresting him in any other way; though in the latter event he should endeavour so to shoot as to cripple rather than kill. Indeed it may be said, extraordinary though the statement may seem, that even in the hurry and skurry of a conflict with burglars the mind should remain calm and collected, so as to judge whether a mortal shot is required, rather than one which will only “wing” the opponent.

In connection with this branch of the subject, the justification of a fatal shot may to some extent depend upon whether the robber was himself armed. If he were, then the killing him would be more easily justifiable than if he were unarmed. This is somewhat instanced by the law regarding an assault and battery in self-defence, which is that where there is an assault the person resisting must show that his assault committed in self-defence was not more violent than he in good faith believed to be necessary and committed on reasonable grounds, so that it would not be right to inflict a heavy beating on a person who had only committed a slight assault upon one. So when all danger is past and a man strikes a blow not necessary for his defence, he commits an unjustifiable assault and battery,—and this principle would apply to the preventing of crimes, so that though one might be acting correctly in firing at and killing a man who was murderously assaulting a third person, yet, after the assault had been committed, it might be wrong to kill the murderer if he were only discovered when running away, unless that was the only means of arresting him.