Skip to main content

http://assets.nydailynews.com/...

I was so shocked by the Michael Dunn case,I had to educate myself on the "Stand your
Ground "law in Florida.

Wow,if your in a grocery store parking lot, I can pull up next to you and kill you. I may be in a bad mood,you happen to have your window rolled down, I might
hear you talking too loud. I can yell at you to talk more quietly,you look over to me
and tell me to fxxk off.

I forgot to mention it"s dark and your a young guy I know could beat the crap out of me. I just so happen to have my gun in the glove box. I am not going to back down
from that punk and I pull out my gun and murder you. I just have to feel  afraid.
I don't have to be at home,I can be anywhere to shoot you.

A normal person would get out of their car,go into the store,come back and go. I am
Bi-Polar,I get pissed,and you my friend,are DEAD.

This law has set the bar so low to justify what I just did is amazing. You were black
and HEY! you guys are always trouble!

I stand a great chance to win with my" I was scared shitless defense." I don't even have
to explain why I didn't park somewhere else,or why would I care what your doing,because I was only going to be in that store a moment? Nope,I can just say my
sorry ass was afraid. Why I can fire 10 shots that hit your car. I have to be careful
only to make sure your alone. I might get in trouble shooting so much. Why,I might
have killed your friends! I can kill you with no problem,but your friends might be another matter for the jury.

The law in Florida is a sneaky way to justify killing black people. I would have NEVER
shot you if you were white.Racists are free to kill. If I were a black parent,I would
leave Florida today. You and your family are not safe! Florida looks at you as a black
person who might forget your place in society. You best not  even be close to any white
man.

Jordon Davis was a young man anyone would be proud to have as a son. He would have had a great life. How do I know this? I listened to his parents speak. The strength
and beauty of Mrs.Davis brings tears to my eyes. She showed such class that her son
HAD to be a great kid. To be raised by parents like that,made him a lucky young man.
His father spoke with such clarity and wisdom,it made me feel never to feel sorry
for myself dealing with two  disabled sons. I owe his parents for showing me what
STRENGTH is.

I THOUGHT we had moved pass the race issue. In Florida,the leaders feel it is time
to go back to a time when blacks were no better than a dog.

Get ANGRY at Florida. Isolate this state, dont go anywhere and spend one dime in that
state. Do the same with anyother state that has this law. If you are black,check and see if the state is safe before you and your family go there.

The man siting in the car can murder you.

Originally posted to Vet 65 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:16 AM PST.

Also republished by Firearms Law and Policy, Shut Down the NRA, Support the Dream Defenders, and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tamp Bay Times did some research on SYG. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vet63, FrankRose

    link

    It is a few months out of date.

    When you look at the accused/victim, with the accused being black, you get the following numbers:

    Victim:
    White: 3 Convicted, 4 justified, 3 pending
    Black: 8 Convicted, 18 justified, 3 pending
    Hispanic: 1 justified
    Ratio: 23 justified to 40 total
    58% justified

    Accused: Hispanic
    Victim:
    White: 3 Convicted, 2 justified
    Black: 3 justified
    Hispanic: 2 justified
    Ratio: 7 justified to 10 total
    70% justified

    Looks like SYG works for more than just when the accused is white.

    Look at the raw numbers when the accused is white as well.

    Victim:
    White: 26 Convicted, 34 justified, 4 pending
    Black: 1 Convicted, 6 justified, 4 pending
    Hispanic: 1 Convicted, 4 justified, 1 pending
    Ratio: 44 justified to 81 total
    54% justified

    Do you think all of these justified instances were wrong?

    •  KVoimakas (5+ / 0-)

      Thank you for posting such detail on this  law. I would have to read every case before I could answer your question. I stand
      by my diary. Two studies by colleges,which I did not talk
      about, says murder is up because of this law. I can"t  try
      to justify anything Mr.Dunn did. He is a racist. Are some
      people of color racist as well? Of course there are.
      Black people are not safe in Florida.
      Mike

      Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

      by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:42:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, for whites and blacks (26+ / 0-)

      Your numbers show the following:

      If you are white and you shoot a black person, you are 6 times more likely to get off than to be convicted.

      If you are black and you shoot a white person, you are 1.3 times more likely to get off than to be convicted.

      This suggests a clear and obvious legal bias in favor of white shooters.

      Furthermore:

      If you are white and shoot a white person, you are 1.3 times more likely to get off than to get convicted.

      If you are black and shoot a black person, you are 2.25 more likely to get off than to be convicted.

      The clear and unmistakable conclusion is that when a black person is shot in Florida, regardless of the color of the shooter, the killing will be excused (no conviction will result).

      Please explain how these numbers are not clear evidence of a racial bias in the way Florida treats both murderers who use a gun, and those who are murdered with a gun.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:56:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hugh Jim Bissell (7+ / 0-)

        Thank you for all of these figures. You have made my point.
        Thanks,
        Mike

        Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

        by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:06:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And if you're Hispanic, you almost get (0+ / 0-)

        a free pass, right? 70% justified.

      •  they are not evidence (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vet63, LilithGardener, OrganicChemist

        because the sample size is far too small to prove a significant difference in outcomes.

        Also it is quite possible that the difference in outcomes results from the differences in the circumstances of the shootings. Any residual racial effect should be sought after accounting for the circumstances.

        •  Partially Correct (7+ / 0-)

          You are correct that the small sample size and the data that is old and incomplete suggest no hard and fast conclusions should be drawn from this data set.

          (FWIW - "significant differences" has a technical meaning in the study of statistics.  Strictly speaking, statistical significance does not depend solely on sample size).

          Because KVoikmakas was willing to "go there" and use this small data set to draw conclusions, I was willing to play along.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:53:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  toxin (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, liberalguy

          The Martin and Davis trials should show that black people are not safe to be around White Men. What other conclusion can you draw? Maybe if we have 50 trials like these,you might
          say,your right!
          I don't want ONE more Black child to die in this state!
          Mike
          .

          Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

          by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:57:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vet63

          But that won't stop spouting these false statistics for the next three months.

          KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

          by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:48:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  fcvaguy (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            I can"t tell,are you saying Vet63(me) used false statistics?
            Mike

            Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

            by Vet63 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:18:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, here (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              The data sample he's using is way too small to come to the conclusions he's gone. Clearly a case of shaping numbers to suit the desired conclusion.

              KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

              by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:34:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What were my conclusions in that comment? (0+ / 0-)
                Looks like SYG works for more than just when the accused is white.
                ...
                [question]
                Do you think all of these justified instances were wrong?
                •  Your conclusions were silly (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener

                  The point is, your sample is way too small to draw ANY conclusions. Its called statistically insignifant. Do the math and tell us what your sample error and margin of error are and your percent confidence.

                  SYG is a bad law. If unarmed kids are getting murdered in the name of self defense, thats enough evidence for me. And, when it comes to our Justice system, I don't believe in "acceptable collateral damage" as your faulty conclusions seem to imply.

                  All for what? So you can carry as many guns as you want, as many types as you want, whereever you want and claim to be a responsible gun owner until someone pisses you off with loud music or disrespects you somehow?

                  Humanity has done well with 700 years of "duty to retreat". We don't need you selfishly recreating Western Civilization.

                  KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                  by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 12:14:52 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My conclusion was that it wasn't just white people (0+ / 0-)

                    that "got away with it" under SYG laws.

                    •  KV, just stop (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Glen The Plumber

                      You drew alot of conclusions in that post, posturing what the data from the TB article was saying. You were wrong.

                      And you're wrong to defend SYG. Defending SYG is offensive to 99% of liberals.

                      KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                      by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 01:06:05 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I drew one conclusion and asked a question. (0+ / 0-)

                        Perhaps you should read the comment actually says instead of reading into the comment.

                        You're wrong to oppose a strong, individual right to keep and bear arms. See how that works?

                      •  His conclusions reveal a dystopian approach (2+ / 1-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Glen The Plumber, WakeUpNeo
                        Hidden by:
                        Tom Seaview

                        to public life. The words chosen were black&white thinking, "it works."

                        To people with that attitude, institutional racism that enables   people to get away with killing, he sees that and conludes
                        a  + b = it's working.

                        A = more concealed carry permits
                        B = more killers getting away with it

                        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                        by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:57:45 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I thought his response (3+ / 0-)

                          was breathtaking.

                          ME:  And you're wrong to defend SYG. Defending SYG is offensive to 99% of liberals.

                          HIM: You're wrong to oppose a strong, individual right to keep and bear arms. See how that works?

                          He sees SYG as part of his "strong, individual right to keep and bear arms.

                          I simply don't know how to unpack that. How on earth can you equate a belief that you have the right to kill someone under something less than what we used to understand as self defense, with the right to bear arms?

                          KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                          by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:18:04 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  No. (8+ / 0-)

                          Like I mentioned before, you shoot to stop. More concealed carry permits means more criminals committing violent felonies get stopped, then I consider that a good thing.

                          To say that I support institutional racism or approve of it at any level is just flat out wrong.

                          •  It's not just wrong... (8+ / 0-)

                            ...it is an intentional lie -- the accusation of racism is becoming a pretty common tactic around here.

                            Apparently, there are those who cannot support their stances with logic or facts, so they stoop to these dishonest tactics.

                            It means you're right and they know you're right, they just don't want anyone else to see your argument, because it may well lose them yet more support for their stance -- they see support for it falling off continually, so these are the tactics they are reduced to.

                            "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                            by theatre goon on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 07:16:43 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Intentional lying is HRable. (0+ / 0-)

                            If you really believe that I intentionally lied, then you should HR, no?

                             Or are you afraid I can easily gather dozens of similar accusations you make when you disagree or purposely misread a comment?

                            Time to droop that donut, else I'm calling your bluff for the bully tactic that it is. You were summoned here to rescue someone after their house of cards argument collapsed.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 08:55:23 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't support HR-ing anyone in 2A (6+ / 0-)

                            threads. It's a moot point. If it's an appropriate HR, it just gets uprated anyway and we're labeled as those who pile on.

                            So no HR. Even when it's justified.

                          •  I've written before that I'm not a fan (0+ / 0-)

                            of the HR system and that it's better in most cases to simply explain what's objectionable. But you actually discourage your followers from abiding by cite guidelines?

                            That's new? Or is there some other reason you actually thought you need to spell it out here?

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:09:00 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  RKBA does not have a policy on HRing. (4+ / 0-)

                            I personally don't support HRing anyone in 2A threads.

                          •  Another of your areas of expertise (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, Kasoru, theatre goon, Vet63

                            "bully tactics."

                            Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

                            by Tom Seaview on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 09:57:06 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's another empty accusation... (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru, Tom Seaview, gerrilea, FrankRose

                            ...to level at those they have no real response to.

                            It's gotten so common that it has lost any real substance that it ever had -- if you call everyone a bully, then the actual bullies fade into the background.

                            It's kinda sad that they can't see that...

                            "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                            by theatre goon on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 11:18:49 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Tom Seaview (0+ / 0-)

                            Normally,I respond to every message. I am enjoying the debate,and will stay out of the way.
                            Mike

                            Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

                            by Vet63 on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 01:21:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Lilith calling for HRs (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tom Seaview, Kasoru, theatre goon

                            In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:01:45 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ok, we're up to six (0+ / 0-)

                            gun enthusiasts who all just happened to helicopter in to this days old thread in a 2 hour window ... Hmmm? Were you summoned? Or do you just follow KV around and pile in when he's brilliant?

                            TG's accusation uprated by:

                            KVoimakas, Tom Seaview, buddabelly, ER Doc, Kasoru, FrankRose
                            Do all of you agree with both parts of his accusation that a) I intentionally lied in my summary comment and b) that my comment accused KV of racism.

                            If I intentionally lied and accused someone of racism this thread should be hidden!

                            Why are you all holding your fire?

                            Is it possible that some of you aren't sure whether you even know what institutional racism is?

                            Is it possible that some of you aren't sure because you haven't read all of KV's dialogue on this subject?

                            Are you unsure of his claims re the Tampa Bay Times?

                            Unsure whether, if sent to the hiddens, others might read my summary and it supported in his comment record?

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:45:31 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Typo ... and find it supported in his... (0+ / 0-)

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:48:14 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you're the victim (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru

                            Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

                            by Tom Seaview on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 03:26:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course you don't (0+ / 0-)

                            No one does.

                            No one "supports" institutional racism.

                            Just like no one "supports" poverty.

                            Your make very clear statements in your comments above. Since you made the same detailed comment before, I thought your claims were sincere. Did I mistake subtle snark? Were you just pretending to believe what you wrote above when you claimed "it works"?

                            Were you just kidding when you claimed elsewhere that more justifiable homicides = more criminals getting killed?

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 07:40:29 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're trying to put a square peg into (6+ / 0-)

                            a round hole.

                            Your A +  B statement above is faulty. B does not equal more killers getting away with it. B equals more people successfully defending themselves with lethal force and not getting punished for it. Yes, there have been some abuses. There always are. Last time I checked, before SYG, you could be prosecuted and jailed for (after the fact) not retreating hard enough.

                            Did you see my comment about SYG in Florida and the research done by a local paper there? There were justified shooting numbers in that comment. Are you saying that all of these aren't? If not, what's the comment about guilty men vs innocent? Blackstone's formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

                          •  Yes, I've read and studied the Tampa Bay Times (0+ / 0-)

                            database, including their investigative articles and case studies. A few months ago I published several diaries on the topic, including some that cite and blockquote their analytival approach and their conclusions.

                            You commented in those diaries, asserting that more justifiable homicides means more criminals are getting killed.  You implied that was a good thing if...  Now here you are in this diary apparently totally unaware that you are grossly misrepresenting The Tampa Bay Times, and their extensive reporting on this issue.

                            I'd be happy to go find some links if you have a serious interest in understanding the topic. So far, i'm not convinced you even care that a) your argument is a house of cards, b) lots of people are waking up to the problem you can't see or just won't acknowledge.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 09:55:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How does killing more criminals = racism??? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, Kasoru

                            I'm missing how you came to this conclusion?

                            I'll respect KV's wishes in this thread, he doesn't want your posting HR'd, but that's pretty low, even for you.

                            Or is this the new face of your groups' efforts to smear any and all you can???

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:24:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They didn't get very far... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea, Kasoru

                            ...calling everyone who disagrees with them bullies (most of the GOS knowing that disagreement is not the same as bullying), so now they're trying to claim everyone who disagrees with them is racist.

                            The thing they apparently don't understand is that if you label everything as racist, then the term loses any real impact and actual racism goes overlooked.

                            "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                            by theatre goon on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 03:34:51 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  TG, you get the award for unintentional (0+ / 0-)

                            irony in this thread.

                            You're capable of making up you own mind about what institutional racism includes. I stand by my comments and did not acuse anyone of racism. Not here, not elsewhere.

                            Compulsively repeating your complaints and accusations ad nauseum won't suddenly make them true. All that does is convince readers you have nothing constructive to offer.

                            Pitiful little puppy piles like this one are just that. Pitiful. And ineffective.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:16:34 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Don't take my word for it (0+ / 0-)

                            I know you like doing your own research, and will up your own mind. You might find the Tampa Bay Times extensive reporting on the issue as compelling as I did. You can sort the stories a number of different ways and read their investigative reports and case studies.

                            1) In comments above, KV attempted to make a racial parity argument, based solely on the race of the shooter.

                            2) His back of the envelope calculation ignored the race of the victim by averaging them together. His reference to a Tampa Bay Times study inferred that he's reporting their findings. (what he omits changes the whole conclusion).

                            3) KV interprets his caliculation as proof that FL's SYG law "is working." Elsewhere he has claimed that more justifiable homicides means more criminals are getting killed.

                            4) The diary and comment threads rebut his racial parity argument from multiple perspectives. I trust if you read both you'll draw you own conclusions about institutional racism. I did not call anyone a racist, and don't think he intentionally misrepresented the Tampa Bay Times.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:42:47 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  ok (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          theatre goon, Kasoru

                          Accuse someone of racism, get a donut. See how that works?

                          Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

                          by Tom Seaview on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 07:21:04 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

    •  I thought you were pro gun and not necessarily (8+ / 0-)

      pro NRA or pro Stand Your Ground.
      I do not understand your support of the Stand Your Ground Law when you call yourself a liberal.
      And now you are professing to have information that contradicts what our (black people) understanding of what that law means to us, our children and our community.
      Have you lost your mind?
      Isn't it enough that you have the right to keep and bear your little killing machines? Must the laws and the understanding of human interaction be changed to give you even more of an unfair advantage? What is wrong with retreating if it means that blood will not be spilled.
      My husband (a gun enthusiast himself) is a trained martial artist, and he always cautioned my son, "walk away."
      One of the first thing my taekwondo trainer told me was that my feet were my best weapons. If at all possible, use your feet and run.
      You know you have the means to kill a man. Isn't that enough?

      Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

      by JoanMar on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 04:54:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Studies have found that SYG is a racist law. (8+ / 0-)

      It's intent is racist, it's application is racist and it's origin was racist.

      A finding of “justifiable homicide” is much more common in the case of a white-on-black killing than any other kind including a white and a black person.
      http://thesocietypages.org/...

      Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

      by JoanMar on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 05:02:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And it's implementation and spread across (5+ / 0-)

        the country is an ALEC achievement, accomplished through a thoroughly corrupt undemocratic process.

        The good news is that SYG has become toxic to the ALEC agenda and they are having trouble raising corporate money now. The more we expose ALEC's role the more we can begin to peel back this one tentacle of a great vampire squid that is chewing through our countries children.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 05:24:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Those that were justified didn't need SYG laws. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vet63, liberalguy, Shotput8

      There were appropriate legal remedies prior to SYG. These laws just make it easier to be "justified." Feeling afraid as an acceptable excuse for taking a life just boggles the mind.

      I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. Leo Gerard.

      by tgrshark13 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 05:40:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh lawd (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      You're drawing conclusions from data which fails any reasonable test of statistical significance. Surely you must understand that?

      KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

      by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:47:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just Make Sure the Dude is Brown nt (5+ / 0-)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:41:04 AM PST

  •  I don't think that's right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vet63, thestructureguy

    [A] person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony….

    ----

    isn't isn't a matter of your own personal feelings. There is a Reasonable basis standard. It is an objective standard: not what you think, or would do, but what a reasonable person in your situation would think or do.

    •  toxin (6+ / 0-)

      Are you saying you can pull up next to a car,in front of a store
      where you will be there for a few moments, not like the
      music, and kill? Come on,I can give a hundred suggestions of things Mr.Dunn could have done besides killing this young man.
      Raise the bar. This event does not come CLOSE to passing what "a resonable man would do" defense.

      Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

      by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:53:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Meet force with force (10+ / 0-)

      In every explanation of the Stand Your Ground laws I have seen, there is a provision that says the individual is allowed to "meet force with force".

      This suggests that before any shooting can be done, there must be a force directed against the person who claims self-defense.

      Clearly, in the Michael Dunn case, the 4 black teens did not act to exert any force against Mr. Dunn (with the questionable exception of loud music and loud cursing).  In my opinion, Mr. Dunn was not in a situation where forces was directed against him, and therefore can make no claim that he needed to "meet force with force".

      Somehow, this idea that one can use deadly force to meet another force is lost in the discussions of whether the shooter was in fear of his life.

      Racists such as Mr. Dunn and Mr. Zimmerman are ALWAYS fearful when facing those of a different skin color - whether those other people are carrying a gun, playing loud music, or simply buying Skittles at a 7-11.  While the fear may be there, the need to use force is not always there.

      If judges are going to be instructing jurors on the Stand Your Ground law, those instructions should included the requirement of using deadly force only when a force is used against the defendant.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:10:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •   (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ColoTim
        In my opinion, Mr. Dunn was not in a situation where forces was directed against him, and therefore can make no claim that he needed to "meet force with force".
        yes, that's the rational person test. he cannot simply claim it as a get-out-of-jail-free card.
      •  Huge Jim Bissel (0+ / 0-)

        I agree If Jordan had a gun,depending on what happened,
        a not guilty may have been in order.
        Mike

        Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

        by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:03:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  ^^^This (3+ / 0-)

        What we see in these two juries is that rage/racism in the form of a threat display [by Mr. Dunn] and a verbal counter [by anyone young and black] can be spun by a willfully blind weak prosecutor and an average defense attorney into "fear of possible force"...

        ... so that morphs into fear of possible force "justifies" deadly force.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:27:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  LilithGardener (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          Your quote is great! Your comment tells me the law needs
          changing. One part: fear of force. I can"t be allowed to
          pull into a parking lot and klll a kid because his music was too
          loud. Every parent of teenagers would be in jail.
          The fact that ANYONE could not convict this man of 2nd degree
          murder,or manslaughter blows me away.
          Take care,
          Mike

          Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

          by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:46:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  If you're white, it's justified if you kill POC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      nosotros no somos estúpidos

      by a2nite on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:24:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I prefer the old "self defense" thing. (5+ / 0-)

      Of course you have the right to defend yourself, but it's not a codified, objective standard - it's a situaional thing.

      Objective standards are not necessarily a good thing - three strikes, mandatory minimums, Rockefeller Drug Laws, etc.

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:57:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You missed the ENTIRE point of the diary... (4+ / 0-)

      The "reasonable  basis standard" is no longer objective. Where once the juror could judge objectively the reasonableness of actions, as presented by evidence - now the juror is charged with a subjectively judging the state mind of the defendant.

  •  Although Florida has two of the most famous ... (14+ / 0-)

    ... such cases, we're not alone, and SYG laws now exist in a majority of states.

    Such laws are fatally flawed. The defense they enable is, "I was afraid for my life." It's impossible to disprove. More importantly, it overlooks a simple fact: Anyone who feels the need to carry a loaded gun with them at all times is, by definition, constantly afraid for his or her life. They are absolutely certain every time they leave their homes that they will encounter someone bent on harming them — if they didn't feel that way, they would feel no need to always be armed.

    When you are a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. When you are a person who is perpetually armed, every confrontation looks like a threat of mortal danger. If someone yells at you, throws popcorn at you, tosses an egg at your car or house, cuts you off in traffic, even looks at you funny, you become convinced that this is the threat you've been certain you would face ever since the day you applied for your concealed carry permit. The bullets fly. Someone dies. It's inevitable.

    Here's the problem with the idea of "responsible gun owners." All of these guys - Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves, countless others - were, to all outward appearances, "responsible gun owners," permitted, educated, trained. Hell, Curtis Reeves was a cop who trained other cops in responsible gun handling.

    The problem is that there is no way to distinguish a "responsible gun owner" from an irresponsible one until the moment they pull the trigger. And then it's too late.

    I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

    by ObamOcala on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:04:21 AM PST

    •  ObamOcala (5+ / 0-)

      You are a gifted writer. Your logic is spot on.I take it your
      not a fan of Rick Scott?
      Mike

      Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

      by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:14:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good Point!!! (7+ / 0-)

      You have made an excellent point: some people are scared all the time.

      Be sure to also look at my comment in this diary about the "meet force with force" requirement of Stand Your Ground laws.  Under the law, it is not enough to be fearful; there must be a forceful provocation.

      Clearly, there was no forceful provocation in the Dunn case.  The Zimmerman case is different: Zimmerman claimed he was getting beat up.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:18:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Huge Jim Bissell (5+ / 0-)

        I always thought self defense means when someone breaks into your home, of course you can use force to protect
        your family.
        Zimmerman was told NOT to carry a gun,He goes after a young man walking home. Now Zimmerman sells paintings
        for $100k. Racists are everywhere,but in Florida, they
        have it easy. Zimmerman should spend the rest of his life in
        prison. He will kill again.
        Mike

        Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

        by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:33:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Self defense (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, k9disc, Joy of Fishes

          Means you have a "reasonable" fear of death or serious bodily injury and you respond with force. Stand your ground means you don't have to look for some other exit from the situation before responding with that force.

        •  Allow me to explain (5+ / 0-)

          I do not disagree with what you say about Zimmerman.  In my mind, Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

          In my previous comment, I said that the case for Zimmerman was different.  He claimed he was getting beaten up.  So, he at least could claim he was in fear of his life.  And most reasonable people might agree that if they were getting beaten up, they too would be in fear for their lives.

          Dunn could not claim that he was being beaten up.  Indeed, eyewitnesses said there was no provocative force used against Dunn.  So he has a more difficult task in saying he was in fear for his life: he has to make people believe he was in fear for his life because he saw a gun that was not there.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:56:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Be careful (0+ / 0-)

          you are verging on the claim that rape victims should not be allowed to fight back if they are attacked outside their home.

          You ALWAYS have the right to self defense - no matter where you are.

          SYG means you do not have the duty to try and retreat first, which is what makes it so awful.

    •  I disagree. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kasoru, Vet63, LilithGardener

      I don't think that by carrying a gun they are "constantly afraid".  It's called being prepared.  It's a fact that the police cannot always respond in a timely manner and be there to protect you.

      If I carry a spare tire, I am not not aftraid of getting a flat.  I am prepared.  If I carry a first aid kit, I am not afraid of getting an injury.  I am prepared.  A gun is a tool and as such needs to be handled properly.  If someone does not do that, they pay the price.  I DO agree that SYG needs to be handeled very carefully by the police and courts.

      •  Konan (5+ / 0-)

        Are things SO BAD in Florida,that everyone should carry a gun?
        People are murdered everywhere. Usually they don't carry.
        a get out of jail card when they kill.

        Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

        by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:08:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did I say that? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vet63

          No, I did not.

          A lot of people have rights they don't use.  Concealed carry is one.  Voting is another.  I could go on and on.

          •  Konan (7+ / 0-)

            I know 3 folks who carry a gun in Seattle. I am aware a person has the right to have and carry a gun. This fact does
            not justify what happened, I am sad if we have a nation
            of the wild west. The folks I know who carry guns,tell me they
            only carry it if their working, They are very careful to put the
            gun in a safe place when they don"t need it. A policeman
            north of Seattle left his loaded gun in the glove box when he and his wife got out of the car for a moment, He left his two
            small children in the car, The 4 year old son,gets the gun
            and killed his  7 year old sister.
            I am not saying this story fits here,but  when guns are everywhere,more people die for no reason at all.

            Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

            by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:44:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree with you on several points. (4+ / 0-)

              I am not nor have I ever been defending Dunn (for example).  If someone uses a gun in an illegal manner they should be punished for it.

              I am a firm beliver in gun safety.  The policeman in your example was wrong to leave a loaded gun within reach of children.  Wrong and stupid.  And it saddens me that a child lost her life over that.  It should never have happened.  But it is not the guns nor the 4 year olds fault.  It was the fathers (and maybe the mothers but I don't know the facts so I cannot say).

              I think we agree on several points.  And thank you for your service to the country. (I say that based on your name here.)

              •  Um, the policeman in question ... (11+ / 0-)

                ... shot a man in a Pasco county movie theater who came at him with a bucket of popcorn. Really deadly weapon, that.

                When you carry a spare tire, you are prepared for the possibility that you will have to change a tire. When you carry a first aid kit, you are prepared for the possibility that you might injure yourself in a minor way. When you carry a gun, you are preparing to shoot someone!

                You can't get around that, or blow it off, or minimize it, or say it will never happen. When you carry a gun to "be prepared," the eventuality you are preparing for is shooting someone.

                I have walked this earth for 53 years in big cities and small towns, in upscale subdivisions and the south side of Chicago, and I have never felt endangered, never felt that perhaps I should have a gun to "be prepared" for someone attacking me. And this is key — I keep my eyes peeled for potentially dangerous situations and places, and take steps to avoid them.

                That's what unarmed people tend to do — avoid confrontation. It's worked for me. But the common denominator in these incidents is that the people involved in them did not try to avoid confrontation, they walked into it, forced the issue and then shot unarmed people because, they claimed, they were afraid for their lives. A gun gives you a feeling of power, and an attitude that no one's going to mess with you or you will blow them the fuck away. And when you walk around with that attitude — when you are "prepared" for the possibility that any person who confronts you represents a mortal danger to you, someone will die. If the other person is unarmed, you will shoot them. If the other person is armed, it's a crap shoot.

                Guns do not make you safe, they make you dangerous to yourself and others. I saw a TV program where a cop was looking for a suspect in a dark field, gun drawn and in down ready position. She almost stepped on the guy before she saw him. She pointed her gun at him and ordered him up. Because of the darkness and his position, she didn't see the gun he was holding until he turned and fired. Fortunately, she was wearing a ballistic vest, was able to return fire, and killed him. Had she not been wearing the vest, she would have been killed.

                Where am I going with that story? Two places. First, she was armed, ready, "prepared," if you will, and got shot anyway. If someone is determined to do you harm, they will do you harm. But my second point is this: She was in that position because it was her job to be there. It's not my job, or yours, to apprehend the bad guys.

                George Zimmerman was asked by a police dispatcher to stay put. He disregarded the request, put himself in harms way, and an unarmed kid who had broken no law is dead.

                Michael Dunn could have put up with loud rap music for the couple of minutes or so his wife was in the store, driven away and that would have been the end of it. But he had a gun, and so was "prepared" for a confrontation. A confrontation ensued, and a kid who had broken no law is dead.

                Curtis Reeves happened to be sitting in a movie theater behind a guy whose wife asked him to text the babysitter before the movie started to make sure his young daughter was okay. Discourteous, yes. But illegal? No. Reeves could have ignored him, or, if he was really bothered by it, moved to another seat. But he had a gun, and so was "prepared" for a confrontation. A confrontation ensued, and a man who might have gone to jail for simple assault is, instead, dead.

                Make no mistake. When you tell me you carry a gun to be "prepared" for trouble, you are telling me you are "prepared" to shoot someone. You will feel no need to avoid confrontation. You will feel no need to avoid areas where you might become a mark for an opportunistic criminal. You will go wherever you damn well please, because you are "prepared."

                I stand by what I said above. All three of the men I described were "responsible gun owners" right up until the moment they pulled the trigger and needlessly snuffed out three lives. But hey, give them a break — at least they were "prepared."

                I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

                by ObamOcala on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:59:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Of course I am (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Vet63, KVoimakas, Joy of Fishes, Konan

                  prepared to shoot someone. However, like virtually all people who carry I REALLY hope I never have to. I'd have to live with having taken someone's life. I'd have to deal with the legal system which has proven it's not always 100% "just", etc...  It would suck really really bad. The only thing worse would be not doing it and me or someone I care about being hurt.

                •  ObamaOcala (4+ / 0-)

                  Your message is powerful. You describe what these two
                  men who killed  with great insight, These men were on a
                  power trip. I knew some guys in Vietnam who loved killing,
                  They were killing for the fun of it. These two people  enjoyed
                  killing. The "rush" is what they craved.
                  Thanks again for this piece. This is not a message,its a
                  diary. Thank you for taking so much of your time.
                  Mike

                  Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

                  by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:33:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  A related point - concealed or open carry (5+ / 0-)

                  includes a desire to have immediate access to a threat of deadly force as a means to influence the behavior of others (others = people or animals).

                  I grew up with guns, and also had small arms training in the military. I currently live in NYC unarmed, but if I were to find myself in some future chapter of my life living in upstate NY, or Montana, or Idaho, I would probably own and sometimes carry arms for personal defense.

                  You are spot on that if I choose to own/carry, I'm also choosing to carry the increased risk of causing my own death by a gun, the increased risk of causing someone I know to be killed with my gun, and increased risk of becoming a crime victim if/when someone tries to steal my gun(s).

                  What seldom gets acknowledged is that if I choose to carry, I'm also choosing a heightened risk of shattering my own life and the lives of many others if I ever have a moment of confusion mixed with fear, poor judgment mixed with fear, or just plain poor impulse control.

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:52:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  LilithGardener (3+ / 0-)

                    I read the Harvard study sent to me by a fellow diarist.
                    Violence goes up,when you own a gun, Your thinking about
                    what could happen is something I bet Mr.Dunn wishes he had
                    done. A simple trip to a store, puts him in jail for life,and
                    ends a  magical childs life,
                    Thanks for writting,
                    Mike

                    Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

                    by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 03:03:40 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Follow along please. (0+ / 0-)

                  The policeman we are talking about is the one Vet mentioned where his (the policeman's) gun sadly killed a 7 year old girl.  That is what I was replying to.

                  When a reasonable and certified person carries a gun, they may be prepared to shoot someone, but I submit they are not preparing to shoot someone.  There is a huge difference there.

                  As for the TV program you saw, I doubt the truth to it.  Police are not dumb and generally don't go walking around in the dark looking for someone.  I know police officers.  I have worked with them.  Your description of events is not in line with training I've heard of.  So yeah... not everything on TV is real.

                  I never said it was my duty "apprehend the bad guys".  So that comment is not valid and there is no need for me to address it.

                  I also said - over and over - that I am not defending Dunn, Reeves, or Zimmerman.  If someone breaks the law, they should be held accountable.  

                  You say "You will feel no need to avoid confrontation."  I disagree.  I think it is different for each person.  To make a statement like that which applies to everyone is reckless in my opinion.

                  I think it's not a stretch to say that most people who conceal carry do not want to go to trial, spend Lord knows how much money, and possibly go to jail.  

              •  Konan (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener

                I agree with your every word,thanks for your kind words!
                Mike

                Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

                by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:19:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I did a diary on loaded gun storage. (2+ / 0-)

              I think it works here

              A RFID, biometric, GPS lock box for loaded guns on bedside stands or in glove boxes.

              Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

              by 88kathy on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:37:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Spare Tires and Guns (9+ / 0-)

        If you get a flat tire, you have to put on a new tire to drive well and safely.

        if you want to protect yourself from criminals, you have many choices - and many of those choices are non-lethal (large dog, pepper spray, taser, kung fu, etc).  There are many ways to be prepared that are non-lethal.

        The fact that you choose to protect yourself from possible criminal attack by using a lethal device -when other perfectly suitable non-lethal defenses are available - suggests to me that your choice involves something beyond the simple need to be prepared.

        The choice of a gun suggests to me that you are preparing yourself to kill someone.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:16:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have personally witnessed (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Konan, Joy of Fishes, Vet63

          A guy take a taser away from the security guard who just tased him with it and use it to beat the security guard in the face.

          Your "kung fu" will also work wonderfully after your assailant shoots you.

          •  Same thing happens to gun owners (8+ / 0-)

            I am sure you are correct.

            And yet, gun owners have the exact same problem.  There are many cases of gun owners who find their guns being used against them.

            Indeed there is evidence that a gun onwer's gun is used against the same gun owner more often than is used to defend the gun owner from attack.  There are many studies that show a gun owner's gun is involved in more shootings of friends and family (accidental and intentionally) than are used to shoot criminals and intruders.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:07:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's great (0+ / 0-)

              and you can use that information in your own choice to own a firearm or not. Now leave my choice to me thanks.

              •  Your "choice" ends ... (6+ / 0-)

                ... where my right not to get shot by you begins.

                I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

                by ObamOcala on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:20:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Fully understanding your choice (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener, liberalguy, Vet63

                In America, you are allowed to choose to carry a gun, just as you are allowed to smoke cigarettes.

                But you should be fully aware of the consequences of your decisions.

                If you decide to smoke cigarettes, the consequences include heart attacks and stroke, and many other serious health problems.

                There are similar consequences of carrying a gun.  You yourself are at greater risk for suffering a gunshot injury than are people who choose not to carry a gun.  Your significant other is ALSO at increased risk for getting shot than are the SOs of people who do not carry a gun.  There is an increased risk that you, your SO, and your kids will use your gun to kill your/themselves.

                A "positive" study for gun owners found that a gun in the home is used to shoot the owner, a family member or an invited guest SIX TIMES more often than the gun is used to shot an uninvited intruder (this study was "positive" because the other study that was done found that the ratio of unwanted shootings to defensive shooting was something like 20:1).

                Feel safer now?  It is your choice to carry a gun, but you are not safer for it.  You may "feel" safer, but that is not the objective reality.

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 03:38:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hugh Jim Bissell (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener

                  I am sorry I missed this yesterday,Your messagei is powerful
                  and people should read it. It goes without saying,I agree
                  with every word.
                  Thanks for your wisdom,
                  Mike

                  Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

                  by Vet63 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:04:57 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  As long as you open carry (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                liberalguy, Vet63

                So everyone else can see the gun, where it's pointed, and decide for themselves if they trust you.

                Concealed carry is sneaking around with it, taking the ability of others to get out of the way away from them.



                Women create the entire labor force.
                ---------------------------------------------
                Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

                by splashy on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 05:57:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You don't have a right to invade my (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kasoru

                  privacy. I'll carry concealed, thanks.

                  •  So, you are very happy to put others at risk (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LilithGardener, fcvaguy

                    Without letting them know it, right?

                    Way to infringe on others. Take away their ability to get out of the line of fire.



                    Women create the entire labor force.
                    ---------------------------------------------
                    Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

                    by splashy on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:02:50 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  A holstered firearm is not a risk to anyone. nt (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DavidMS
                    •  Historically, concealed carry was considered (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      fcvaguy, Glen The Plumber

                      devious and unfair, because it gave unfair advantage, and induced the bearer to commit criminal acts (paraphrasing and summarizing), and surprise assassinations. I only learned this recently, from reading about the 18th century rationale for prohibiting concealed carry.

                      So, concealed carry is a modern social convention. Keep posting splashy. You're planting seeds every time you lay out your clear and compelling logic.

                      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                      by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:26:54 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Over the past few months (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

                        my thinking has evolved. If you want to carry a weapon outside your home, it should be in the wide open. No concealed carry.

                        KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                        by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:38:00 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm not there yet, for a variety of reasons (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          fcvaguy, Glen The Plumber

                          but with examining the historical arguments I'm far less certain than I used to be that concealed carry is better. It seems like we failed to learn from our past and so we are unawares, deluding ourselves, blindly repeating the lesson.

                          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                          by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:54:58 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I understand (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

                            I'd been thinking the same way. And, I think Splashy up above, makes an excellent point. People should know and be aware of who and what is around them. Interestingly, some of the RKBA seem to not like that idea, citing their "Privacy" rights to conceal their weapons. I don't believe in such an association.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 05:43:37 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course you don't. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            Which is fine. But you don't get to force your beliefs on other people.

                          •  projecting much KV? (0+ / 0-)
                            you don't get to force your beliefs on other people
                            The only right to privacy with respect to concealed carry exists in your mind only. Not in any juris prudence.

                            You like your guns. You want to carry them everywhere. You've made that clear numerous times.

                            You should do so proudly, and OPENLY.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 07:17:53 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Right, because only things with clear (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru

                            precedent in the courts or legislation can every truly be correct or right.

                            So, by that standard, you support Heller and McDonald right?

                          •  I support Heller and McDonald (0+ / 0-)

                            You don't. You disagreed with Scalia's ruling where he cited examples of reasonable restrictions.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 08:32:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually, I've pointed to the "cannot ban (0+ / 0-)

                            commonly used firearms" section of that ruling often enough. I don't support "no restrictions" as a policy plank on firearms.

                          •  Scalia: (0+ / 0-)
                            Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
                            Scalia then acknowledged in his interview with Fox that future rulings will sort out "common use" and other remaining ambiguities. Scalia got what he wanted, an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment. But, he's no idiot. When Heller II and NYSAFE, and other laws get up to the SCOTUS, I think you may very well be seriously disappointed.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 08:55:40 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I completely agree with your bolded section. (0+ / 0-)
                            It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
                            I can't carry a bazooka or grenades or a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher (or cruise missiles, etc). There are currently restrictions on who can obtain NFA firearms and devices.

                            When those cases make it up to SCOTUS, what happens if you're the one who is disappointed?

                          •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

                            In previous dialogue, you made it clear you didn't agree with Scalia in the blockquote. That puts you to the right of him even.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:04:08 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If RKBA was a right/left issue, I could concede (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            that.

                            I don't agree with everything in the original blockquote, which is why I narrowed it down.

                          •  What part don't you agree with? (0+ / 0-)

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:10:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I disagree with this: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru
                            For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
                            I'm reading that as any/all current prohibitions, not just some. I have no problem with some restrictions on who can carry, where they can carry, etc. But places like Cali or New Jersey or Hawaii are overly restrictive.

                            Guess we will find out when that recently discussed case hits SCOTUS.

                          •  PS there are three points in the bolded (0+ / 0-)

                            You addressesd one.

                            1) any weapon whatsoever
                            2) in any manner whatsoever
                            3) for whatever purpose.

                            He said that for a reason. You should give it some thought to understand what he was saying.

                            For example, I know you were trumpeting the recent Ninth Circuit ruling overturning San Diego's law regarding concealed carry. However, it was overturned by a 3 judge panel, two of whom are noted conservatives, and not the full court.

                            When it gets to the full court, the San Diego law could very well be upheld under Scalia's "for whatever purpose" clause. We shall see.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:07:57 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There is a direct analogy (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, fcvaguy

                            that might apply the same logic from voting to gun rights. When people want to exercise their right to vote they must register their intent to do so in advance. It's a matter of public record. Their actual vote is private, but their party affiliation and whether they voted are matters of public record. And in most jurisdictions people must show up to vote in person. If they mess up any part of the rules, they have to wait 2 years before they get another chance to exercise their right to vote. But in no case do they ever get to "be a voter" without their families, their neighbors, their friends, their employers knowing about it.

                            IOW we ask people to surrender a little privacy to exercise their constitutional right. It used to be the sane approach to public gun carry too. Now we expect everyone to surrender some medical privacy, for their entire lives, even though the vast majority will never seek to purchase or own a gun.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 06:41:03 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ... and we demand that (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, fcvaguy

                            of everyone for the convenience of legal and illegal gun owners, so they can buy/sell guns in private, without anyone knowing about it.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 06:47:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What do people register for when they want (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            to exercise their freedom of speech or religion? Is this also only a once every two years event?

                          •  thoughtful argument (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 07:18:35 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  To be clear, the analogy (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, fcvaguy

                            gun rights are like voting rights breaks down quickly, but I've seen it tossed out so often I decided to explore some of it's dimensions.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 07:27:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, strawmen get propped up (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            too often in these discussions. The only ones that piss me off is when they say having a gun is like being Black or Gay.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 08:33:20 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  There is absolutely zero association (0+ / 0-)

                    between the right to privacy and concealed carry. And, courts have NEVER associated a right to privacy to concealed carry.

                    KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                    by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:37:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  splashy (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener

                  I am sorry I ran out of time yesterday to tell you your
                  Conceled carry statement goes to the heart of why there are
                  so many sad murders in this country.
                  Thank you for writing,
                  Mike

                  Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

                  by Vet63 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:09:41 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I'd add (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas

              I'd like to see the stats for this:

              "Indeed there is evidence that a gun onwer's gun is used against the same gun owner more often than is used to defend the gun owner from attack."

              Since the lowball number of defensive gun uses in the US is over 100,000 a year.

        •  Perfect suitable is relative. (0+ / 0-)

          What if a dog, pepper spray, or such does not midigate the situation?  What if you need more than one dog?  Btw, do you know how much it costs to train an attack dog?  A lot.  Kung Fu is not going to help much if someone is out of range and a threat to me.

          A gun is a tool.  It requires human responsible agency.  It can be used for good or bad.  If it is used in an illegal manner, the person should be punished.  Seems pretty simple to me.

          Regarding your last statement, think of it this way: rather than thinking they are preparing to kill someone, consider instead that they are prepared to protect someone (themselves, a loved one, or someone else).  I'm asking you seriously.  There is a big difference there.  Research and consider how many times guns are used to save a life.

          For the record, I do not carry nor have a permit.

          •  Guns are more dangerous to gun owners (5+ / 0-)

            And yet, gun owners have the exact same problem.  There are many cases of gun owners who find their guns being used against them in a criminal attack.

            Indeed there is evidence that a gun onwer's gun is used against the same gun owner more often than is used to defend the gun owner from attack.

            Most empirical studies of shootings give evidence that guns cause more injuries to the owner, family members, and invited guests, than to uninvited intruders.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:10:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well we could both quote studies all day long (0+ / 0-)

              and get nowhere with each other.  There are studies out there to support either side.  Or any side as the case may be since it's not just a two sided issue.

              Some studies include suicide by gun as an example of a gun being dangerous the gun owner.  Well duh.  But suicide by a gun is far different than an injury or death by someone who was -for example - cleaning a gun irresponsibly.  Two completly different situations.  So we all need to be careful about citing evidence or a study when we don't really know the manner or methods used in the studies.  (For the record, in my "save a life" quote above, I am well aware the NRA or others spins things in their favor.  So one needs to be careful there too.  I would no more trust the NRA than I would the Brady Foundation or whatever the name is.)

              Also the term "more often" is dangerous.  Again, statistics can me massaged in a way to skew results.  But enough of that.

              At the end of the day, if you can save a life with a gun would you?

              That is a personal choice of course.  I would rather save the life than see it lost.  Or to frame it another way, better to be judged by 12 then be carried by 6.  Or being one to help carry.

              I say again: A gun is a tool.  It requires human responsible agency.  It can be used for good or bad.  If it is used in an illegal manner, the person should be punished.

              •  I prefer the Harvard school of public health (3+ / 0-)

                studies, they have been well quoted on this site, societally guns introduce much risk, as an individual believe what you want

              •  I'll show you mine, if you show me yours (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener, churchylafemme

                I am happy to compare studies with you.

                The fact is that the vast majority of peer-reviewed published studies of guns and guns injuries show that a gun in the home is a danger to the gun owner, family members, and invited guests.

                Here is something for you to read: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

                What have you got for me?

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 03:47:19 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Au contraire, Konan. (0+ / 0-)

                Whip out your pro-gun studies. Go ahead. Let's see 'em.

                Fact is, the gun lobby worked against gun violence studies for a reason: they show that humans screw up with guns.

                At the insistence of the gun lobby, the Affordable Care Act was limited from engaging in gun behavior study in 2013; the Health and Human Services was issued a prohibition in the 2012 budget. Interference with the CDC, the research arm of public health, is still described by health professionals as "chilling."

                I've looked into this subject. Kleck is the only long-term epidimiologist whose figures agree with your premise that  studies support gun mayhem; it was his committee in the CDC 2013 study using those figures.  (He was quoting himself.)

                So let's see your figures.

                _______________________________________________________________________________________ It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

                by reasonablegunsplz on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 05:38:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Don't hold your breath (0+ / 0-)

                  I'd like to see what Konan has got in the way of data or good studies.  

                  Tho' I am not expecting much - more fact-free opinionating.

                  "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                  by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 06:14:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let's start here... (0+ / 0-)

                    I too can go from the specific to the general like so many do here.

                    This.

                    Let us cut to the chase.  Just so I don't have to post them all.

                    As I said above, I can quote other sources but I don't trust them from either side.  If you do, that is your right.

                    Tell me this: which gets more attention in the media: a sensational trial where someone died or a sad moment where a criminal was stopped with a firearm?  Think about that.  Seriously, I am asking you to.  Count out how many people you can think of that made the news due to saving a life with a firearm.  I am guessing not many.  You know why?  Money.  News outlets are in the business to make money.  On both sides of the political world.  They make money by keeping stories alive in the media.

                    It is like a poster wrote here about his experience working in reality television.  They don't do boring.  They script and only show what gets ratings.  All the news and websites you view do the exact same thing.  Sensation and scandal sells.

                    Let me also ask you this: how many of you lock your doors to your domicile?  If you do, then why?  I'm guessing it is because you want to defend yourself against theft or harm.  Enough said.

                    •  39 DGUs in PA. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      terrybuck

                      OK, so the authors say they count 39 defensive gun uses in the state of PA. (tho' I didn't see any further documentation (ya know - police report) about any of those incidents - so how can we know these are all actual defensive gun uses and not Michael Dunn encounters?).  I point out that this article has not been peer-reviewed, and is published in a publication dedicated to glorifying gun use.

                      Tell us - how many criminal uses of a gun have occurred in PA?  hundreds? thousands? hundreds of thousands?

                      Tell us - how many gun suicides have occurred in the state of PA? hundreds? thousands? tens of thousands?

                      And how many accidental shootings have occurred in the state of PA? hundreds? thousands? tens of thousands?

                      What this article shows is that gun owners sometimes sue their guns to ward off criminal attack - something no one disputes.  What this doesn't tell us is that gun owners are made any safer by owning guns (did you notice the brave gun owning defender in the story was attacked by a guy with a gun? - so is this really a story about a DGU or a story about an offensive gun use?).  

                      So there are 39 DGU in the state of PA, and thousands of offensive gun uses, hundreds of suicides, and hundreds of accidental shootings.  How exactly are gun owners made safer by their guns?

                      Here's an article for you to read: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/...

                      I like this game: send me more articles.

                      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:40:21 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Or simply preparing to use the threat of deadly (0+ / 0-)

          force to influence others' behavior.

          The thread of deadly force is extremely persuasive and much easier to apply than many other methods to influence behavior.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:55:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  You don't get the juice from the bullets. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYFM, LilithGardener, Vet63

        It's the gun that is the tool the bullets are a vital part for gun operation.

        The spare tire is like the bullets - your car doesn't work without it. I notice that you didn't talk about how driving a car changes your perspective, or alter your behavior, as that is the part of the argument that your comment here seems to miss the mark on.

        The car is the tool that changes your perspective. Super nice old ladies flip the bird at the drop of a hat. Nice, law abiding citizens go apeshit on eachother when the car is impeded from doing it's job of liberation (traffic jam - asshole driver).

        That stuff happens because the tool changes you.

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:08:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you suggesting that we should not drive cars? (0+ / 0-)

          I would submit that we should drive them responsibly.

          I suggest that if someone does something illegal or irresponsible with a car that we punish them.

          Oh wait, we do!

          Just like with guns.

          So what is your point exactly?

          •  if we drove fewer cars and less miles, that would (4+ / 0-)

            be a great gift to all, our personal health, and an environmental benefit

            I see you're pretty new to these never ending debates with gun owners, the car thing's been beat to death

            And yes it's OK to think outside the box

          •  The good old "cars are dangerous too" argument (4+ / 0-)

            Cars are licensed and registered. You must be licensed to own and drive one, and you must prove you are proficient before obtaining that license. You must be insured. You must re-register your car every year or two, and must prove you have driven your car safely and responsibly every year in order to renew your insurance. If you have been careless and racked up tickets and and/or accidents, you will pay more for your insurance and have points assessed on your license. Acquire too many points, and you lose your license.

            I would love to see similar rules applied to guns. But that, apparently, would be infringing upon your freedom in an unacceptable way.

            Your comments in response to others who suggested non-lethal ways of defending oneself suggest that you think your gun makes you invincible. Sure, you say, tasers and pepper spray are fine, but can be taken away. But when others point out that a gun can be taken away and used against the gun owner, you scoff and demand we present case studies proving that has happened. Ask any cop who works in a big city. It happens. But it won't happen to you.

            You scare me, honestly. You are one confrontation away from being the next George Zimmerman, Michael Dunn or Curtis Reeves. And I hope I'm safely out of range when it happens.

            I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

            by ObamOcala on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:15:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, Konan

              Only to drive it on public roads. I can own a car and use it on private property all I want with no license and no registration. In fact I do a bit of that. I have a truck that hasn't had valid tags on it since 1997 and I drive it almost every weekend. Just like to carry a firearm in public (in virtually every state) I have to get a permit, pass a test, prove I know the law and am proficient, etc...

              This all skips over the fact that driving isn't an explicit civil right in the constitution and owning firearms is of course.

            •  You do NOT need to be licensed (0+ / 0-)

              and have the car registered in order to drive one.

              That is just something assumed by people who live in cities.

              But it's not true.

            •  Was this address to me? (0+ / 0-)

              If so, you did not read what I have written several times already.  I do not conceal carry.  Or openly carry (legal in certain areas, happily).  

        •  k9disc (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          k9disc

          Having a gun at all times,or several like Zimmerman,makes
          you feel powerful and kils innocent people. Our country
          is barbaric  compared t most other civilized  Countries.
          Mike

          Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

          by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 03:16:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  You can't be constantly prepared 24/7. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        If the police can't protect you the chances that you preparedness will mesh with that need are slim to none.

        Thinking you can be alert 24/7 is a fatal flaw in your danger mitigation plan.

        Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

        by 88kathy on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:34:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There are plenty of people who carry who are (6+ / 0-)

        not constantly afraid. Many are so comfortable in their surroundings that they even forget they have a gun in their bag, in their pocket, in their purse,

        they are so NOT afraid they leave their gun in the bathroom, on the coffee table, under the seat, in the drawer next to their bed, on the bottom shelf of the closet, ... where children and teens easily find them.

        they are so NOT afraid they leave it in their car when they want to attend a large concert or any event in a sports arena, attend a parent/teacher conference in their school, or go take care of business in the court house.

        they are so NOT afraid they don't take it with them into a hospital or into a church...

        ... I understand the argument about being prepared is not the same as being afraid, and I get the analogy to a helmet, a spare tire, and a fire extinguisher.

        There are enormous differences though that need acknowledgment. Helmets don't injure 70,000 people a year, or kill 30,000 people a year. Fire extinguishers can't hurt someone in the next room, or across your property line, when you take it out once in awhile to see if it's still operable. A spare tire has never caused a single fatal accident.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:40:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely right about recognizing the (0+ / 0-)

          differences. I don't have a constitutionally enshrined civil right to keep and bear helmets, a spare tire, or a fire extinguisher.  

          •  The word "enshrined" again, KV. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            churchylafemme, liberalguy

            I just wish you would apply the "enshrinement" to something holy or sacrosanct.

            This gun shrine is in your mind. But not in the mind of Trayvon's parents, or Jordan's parents.

            _______________________________________________________________________________________ It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

            by reasonablegunsplz on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 05:50:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Definition: (0+ / 0-)
              en·shrine transitive verb in-ˈshrīn, en-, especially Southern -ˈsrīn\
              : to remember and protect (someone or something that is valuable, admired, etc.)
              Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't fit.
              •  Okay, if you don't mind being considered... (0+ / 0-)

                ...as a person who puts guns on a shrine. Your reverence is self-evident in your promotion of the gun mentality around here, BTW.

                But I am a person who sees terrible social, ethical, and health costs being paid by a great nation, many of whose citizens don't even want guns around. They have their reasons, KV.

                I was raised with guns. My personal collection at age 12 was three handguns, and a .22 rifle, not bad. In another life in NM I shot two running rabbits, one shot one kill each.

                I still have a $25 pawnshop .22, but it's not kept on any shrine. I am too ashamed of current gunboy behavior to be seen in public with it: I'm a once-proud gunowner, and I speak as such.

                What is your comment on our gun violence rates being 19.5X worse than other high-income nations?  Have a plan, bro?

                _______________________________________________________________________________________ It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

                by reasonablegunsplz on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 07:08:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  All of our civil rights are enshrined in the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DavidMS

                  Constitution, including the right to keep and bear arms.

                  But I am a person who sees terrible social, ethical, and health costs being paid by a great nation, many of whose citizens don't even want guns around. They have their reasons, KV.
                  Which is why we have a Bill of Rights to begin with. It's meant to protect rights against majority rule infringements at the federal level (though some of it has been incorporated against the states).

                  You must be rather old to have 3 handguns at the age of 12. I'm assuming that's pre-GCA?

                  What is your comment on our gun violence rates being 19.5X worse than other high-income nations?  Have a plan, bro?
                  Yes I do. I've mentioned it before. And guess what? We can reduce firearm related violent crime with firearm specific measures and general measures (that also impact all violent crime) without further restrictive controls.  My suggestions are here.
        •  LilithGardener (0+ / 0-)

          I am sorry I missed your powerful message yesterday. I agree with youon every word.
          Thanks for writing here!
          Mike

          Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

          by Vet63 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:27:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not a majority of states - fewere than half (0+ / 0-)

      and a few states are already beginning to walk back the laws. ALEC/NRA support for the laws has become toxic for ALEC.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:29:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pushy Loudmouth White Men have shot people.... (8+ / 0-)

    ....on a pretty regular basis, Pushy Loudmouth White Men have shot people for texting, talking, playing loud music, walking thru their neighborhoods, cutting thru their yards, and even for knocking on their front door, therefore:

    Any Pushy Loudmouth White Male who accosts you publicly is likely to try to kill you, (since so many of them have done so) and, least under FL law, you are allowed to shoot people who scare you.

    As a White Male, I intend to keep my mouf shut and not accost ANYONE about ANYTHING, particularly any person of color, since other White Males have established that we are threatening and dangerous and thoroughly qualified for Pre-Emptive Shooting....

    Only "sorta" snark, folks....

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:13:24 AM PST

  •  So you guys (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Konan, Vet63, thestructureguy, ColoTim

    are skipping over the entire part where he was charged, tried, and convicted on multiple counts that have him facing 60 years in prison plus a re-trial on the 1st degree murder charge that resulted in a hung jury...

    •  For me, that's kinda upsetting (7+ / 0-)

      For myself, seeing how the jury was able to reach a verdict on three charges of attempted murder (the three kids not shot), but fail to reach a verdict on the 4th attempted murder charge and the murder charge (the teen shot dead) is very upsetting.

      We have a shooter who admits shooting, we have a bullet-ridden body, we have eyewitnesses, we have three incidents of attempted murder - how do you NOT convict on the murder charges?

      Oh yeah - it's not "attempted murder" if the victim dies, so thrown out the 4th charge of attempted murder.  And it's not murder because the shooter had a reasonable and justified fear of black youths (doesn't everyone?)- so under the law, he is allowed to shoot someone who causes him fear.

      I have not overlooked the trial and verdict, but I find the verdict upsets me.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:28:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  farmernate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim

      I am aware Mr. Dunn is facing life in prison. Any fool who would fire 10 bullets into a car,SHOULD be locked up forever.
      Still,Mr.Dunn should be found guilty of at least  manslaughter
      or 2nd degree murder. I think the Prosecutor in both
      of these cases, set the bar too high.
      Mike

      Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

      by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:15:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vet63, ColoTim, Catesby

        If they had concentrated on getting a manslaughter or murder 2 conviction instead of trying for 1st degree murder they might have succeeded. Any crime of "passion" like this, that isn't planned beforehand seems very hard to convict as 1st degree.

        •  farmernate (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim, LilithGardener, Catesby

          I think Mr.Dunn had a few drinks in him,saw a black kid,and wanted to play BIG MAN to his lady. I agree, Mr.Dunn did
          not pull into that parking lot looking to kill.
          He saw an opportunity  to kill.and went for it.
          Thanks for the comment!
          Mike

          Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

          by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:52:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Well Dunn is going to jail. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vet63

    Sure, not for murder but attempted murder and so will be in jail for probably a long time.

    Is that not a deterrent?  Will that not send a message?

  •  now that I"ve thought about it (3+ / 0-)

    I had an incident last year where a 'parking lot rage' incident turned into a young black woman following me and screaming and yelling racial epithets at me in Publix.  I was totally afraid of her, have to admit and finally managed to walk away.  But I suppose that if I had been carrying a gun, I could have shot her, claimed SYG and walked away.  That is just so totally crazy and sick that this situation can happen.   But this is Georgia and SYG is the law here; we haven't had the case to rise to Florida's level, but it's only a matter of time.  

    sometimes the dragon wins

    by kathy in ga on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:49:10 AM PST

    •  Per the law (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, happymisanthropy

      "Afraid" isn't good enough. It's a "reasonable fear of death or seriously bodily injury". Which is why Dunn was convicted of multiple charges and faces more. If she was coming towards you with a lead pipe in her hand, then you could have shot her.

      •  Isn't that self defense? nt (0+ / 0-)

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:18:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, Catesby

          HOWEVER, without "Stand Your Ground", a prosecutor could charge her and say "Well, you could have run away from her couldn't you".

          Cases where such charges were brought were the impetus for passing SYG laws in the first place.

          •  Right, a woman threatening you in a store with (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Vet63

            a lead pipe would ask you to seek to diffuse the altercation in some other way for it to be an airtight self defense, and that is the proper civilized response.

            Otherwise we wind up assessing only the shooter's state of mind at the time of shooting which kind of defeats the point of a more clear and defined self defense action.

            This is just an excuse to be an asshole without fear of taking a beating - in fact, you get to be an asshole and shoot then shoot the fucker too. It's a coward's law.

            Enabling scared people to be more aggressive, and act on that aggression is not good public policy.

            Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

            by k9disc on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:36:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Catesby

              "proper civilized response" until after you turn to try and run away she quickly closes the ground between you and bashes your skull in.

              "Otherwise we wind up assessing only the shooter's state of mind at the time of shooting which kind of defeats the point of a more clear and defined self defense action."

              No, there is no difference. The standard for self defense which is based on a "reasonable fear" is identical with or without SYG. SYG is only relevant in the sense that I do not have to prove I did everything else possible to get out of the situation before I used deadly force.

            •  k9disc (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              k9disc

              A cowards law! This,with your permisson,will be used by me.
              Thanks for writing,
              Mike

              Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

              by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 06:07:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  I'm glad for all there that there were no weapons (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener
    •  What were you afraid of? n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      If I comply with non-compliance am I complying?

      by thestructureguy on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:17:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  i was afraid (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ColoTim, LilithGardener

        because she was following me around the store and screaming and cursing at me.  I was trying to walk away and she kept following me.  She was a lot younger and stronger and could have hurt me.  But I don't carry a gun and never will.  I do however, have 3 big dogs at home so consider them to be my personal security system there.

        sometimes the dragon wins

        by kathy in ga on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:55:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  kathy in ga (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, LilithGardener

      I have to say if this young lady had come up to you,I would
      have understood if you used a gun to protect yourself.
      You were wise enough to get yourself to safety, You are the type of person Mer Dunn should have been.
      Thanks for writing,
      Mike

      Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

      by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:59:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I disagree with being prepared (5+ / 0-)
    I don't think that by carrying a gun they are "constantly afraid".  It's called being prepared.
    Then we don't need law enforcement...Just strap on a sideiron and be prepared you are saying.
    Don't even confuse a first aid kit with an ambulance.
    If you do..you won't be prepared for a broken neck or a major massive heart attack or internal bleeding.

    This is absolute coward feel good and scared to death and it won't end with brown skin... It will be, " Am I white enough to not piss someone off."  Is my hair too dark?
    Are my eyes too brown?  Is this scarf covering too much of my hair?  Where does the fear end and how prepared does it take someone if they got a beef to step out of the vehicle and fight for what they believe in.   I mean call a cop ...call a Daddy..drive away.....These are sick..racist..scared shitless people and I disagree.

    We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:28:36 PM PST

  •  Too many white people think that there is no more (6+ / 0-)

    Racism.

    Please read this because I thought white people were lying about racial bias; it's subconscious.

    http://www.salon.com/...

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:43:41 PM PST

  •  what would WAyne do? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vetwife, schumann, LilithGardener

    If Wayne LaPierre had been at the gas station, who would he have thought the 'good guy with a gun' was and shot at???  My money is on him shooting at the kids.  

    sometimes the dragon wins

    by kathy in ga on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:56:48 PM PST

  •  Maybe my 80yo mother opens the car door and (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, LilithGardener, Mayfly

    it slams into your vintage corvette. Your are sitting in the corvette with the roof off. Maybe you just teach my 80yo mother a lesson. Maybe you just shoot the old gal.

    Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

    by 88kathy on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:26:26 PM PST

  •  Vets you took on a good subject for a post (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, LilithGardener, Vet63, tytalus

    and it cannot be talked about too much.
    My hat is off to you and the consideration you have shown people is admirable.

    Some of the people who are upholding fear as a reasonable thing do not live in Florida or they would know we have way too many racists with guns down here.  The problem is hate because anything can be a weapon but a gun is usually a lethal one.   YOU are a vet and my husband and others are vets and if combat vets or trained people want a confrontation, they IMO have the upperhand and know what it is like to live in guilt and remorse.. Those who have no remorse but fear guiding their lives rely on the weapon for their courage, not their common sense.  

    There is a darn good reason he didn't call the police, or the girlfriend.. They were drunk.  He has a jelly for a spine and lives out his racism and issues.   Even in Tombstone, Wyatt 's brother would not allow drinking and firearms in the city limits.   That was the 1800.'s.  

    Good diary !

    We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:43:48 PM PST

  •  And we're considering moving back (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, Mayfly

    for retirement.............................

    (Gotta check. See how dark a tan I get. Is it lethal. Can I carry an Uzi? Body armor? To go fishing.)

    What the diary describes is crazy stuff.

    "Teachers: the Architects of American Democracy"

    by waterstreet2013 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 03:08:54 PM PST

  •  Republished (2+ / 0-)

    to Firearms Law and Policy
    and
    Shutdown the NRA

    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

    by LilithGardener on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 04:42:21 PM PST

  •  Everybody who has ever raised a kid knows that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vet63

    teen-agers--yours, mine,  and all the others--are a pain in the ass some (or more) of the time.

    We don't shoot them.  Or, we shouldn't.

    The right of the women of this State to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches shall not be violated by the State legislature.

    by Mayfly on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 06:08:33 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site