Cute Gun Control article from 40 years ago.

And this section was told over and over and you still see it floating around.

At the time, we were shocked and surprised at the revelation. It is not till later that we come to find out that “known by their assailants” was such a generic and open-ended term, it did not make sense unless your intention was to misguide people and garner support gun control policy. You have seen John Meth-Head walk by your place of business every day and in a couple of occasions he has addressed you for money or you had asked him to leave your dumpster alone, does not mean you know the guy as you would a friend or a coworker. But if John suddenly becomes aggressive to the point of bodily harm and you defend yourself. the fact you had seen him before automatically constitutes that “you know him.”

And then there is the question of relevance of knowing the assailant: Who gives two damns if it is a blood relative train to brain you with a hammer or the mailman who decided to try to rape a female on his route? Relationship closeness or lack of it does not make a defense from a credible threat of death or bodily harm more or less legal or defensible.