rushmc 23
Recommended Posts
devildog 0
kelpdiver
We know how often CCW carriers use their weapons in public. If carrying tends to embolden people to enter a gun fight, we'd see it happening. It is quite rare. Why? Because gun fights are dangerous with uncertain results. Even if you shoot the other guy, he doesn't die like in the movies. Even after being shot he is a lethal threat to you. One thing that is stressed by CCW training and defensive gun use in general is that if you shoot someone, it's nearly certain you're going to jail and will be spending considerable money in legal costs, even for justified shootings (like this one). Not something you leap into just for the heck of it.
So no, I don't consider your supposition very credible.
Trying to find the article I read a while back, but the gist of it is that CCP holders draw their guns less frequently than police by a wide margin, and by an even wider margin, end up shooting the wrong person far less often. While I'm trying to dig it up, here's a little side blurb that's rather interesting, courtesy of the NYT (who was attempting to show the opposite)
"According to the data concealed carry permit holders are 5.48 times less likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm than the average citizen."
Break down of the data used (NC population and CCP holders) is found here:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/ny-times-uses-deceptive-statistics-to-promote-anti-gun-agenda-again/
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.
OHCHUTE 0
devildog***
We know how often CCW carriers use their weapons in public. If carrying tends to embolden people to enter a gun fight, we'd see it happening. It is quite rare. Why? Because gun fights are dangerous with uncertain results. Even if you shoot the other guy, he doesn't die like in the movies. Even after being shot he is a lethal threat to you. One thing that is stressed by CCW training and defensive gun use in general is that if you shoot someone, it's nearly certain you're going to jail and will be spending considerable money in legal costs, even for justified shootings (like this one). Not something you leap into just for the heck of it.
So no, I don't consider your supposition very credible.
Trying to find the article I read a while back, but the gist of it is that CCP holders draw their guns less frequently than police by a wide margin, and by an even wider margin, end up shooting the wrong person far less often. While I'm trying to dig it up, here's a little side blurb that's rather interesting, courtesy of the NYT (who was attempting to show the opposite)
"According to the data concealed carry permit holders are 5.48 times less likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm than the average citizen."
Break down of the data used (NC population and CCP holders) is found here:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/ny-times-uses-deceptive-statistics-to-promote-anti-gun-agenda-again/
For god sakes guy's who have permits to carry guns are so slow to use them, I don't have a clue why they even put up with the weight to carry them. In addition, even cops have a hard time hitting a target. Just look at how many rounds were fired at the Boston Marathon Bombers. Just so happened z ended up on the ground with the guy over him and he had no alternative. Besides, his target was pretty close, so close the round that was fired was point blank. Z didn't set out to shoot Martin.
Perhaps if both people would have been off their cell phones and paying attention, to walking in the dark, this wouldn't have happened. Blame it on cell phone usage while walking.
mistercwood 287
I don't get how quite a few people keep going with the "he was trying to beat GZ to death" bit. I got mugged about 6 years ago. Three guys, one of them had a telescopic baton. My injuries were worse than GZs. It was a very unpleasant experience. But at no point did I think they were actually trying to kill me. I really have a hard time with what appears to be a cultural acceptance that it's perfectly ok to end a fist fight with a gunshot.
I get and agree that what Zimmerman did was, ultimately, legal. I'm still not convinced it was right.
I get and agree that what Zimmerman did was, ultimately, legal. I'm still not convinced it was right.
You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.
davjohns 1
Not a bad agument. Let me help a little.
You don't have to believe the person is going to kill you. You have to reasonably believe they are going to kill or cause severe bodily harm. We have no idea how far TM would have gone. IMO, if three guys came at you (and one was armed) you would be within your rights to fire on them...all else being equal. Glad you came out alive.
I don't think anyone said it is acceptable to end a fist fight with a gun shot. In the dark, assailed by a stranger, how do you know it's just a fist fight? Is it still a fist fight when your head hits the pavement?
Your comment on the difference between right / wrong vs legal / illegal is perfectly valid. People are wrong long before they cross into that area where society is willing to lock them up.
You don't have to believe the person is going to kill you. You have to reasonably believe they are going to kill or cause severe bodily harm. We have no idea how far TM would have gone. IMO, if three guys came at you (and one was armed) you would be within your rights to fire on them...all else being equal. Glad you came out alive.
I don't think anyone said it is acceptable to end a fist fight with a gun shot. In the dark, assailed by a stranger, how do you know it's just a fist fight? Is it still a fist fight when your head hits the pavement?
Your comment on the difference between right / wrong vs legal / illegal is perfectly valid. People are wrong long before they cross into that area where society is willing to lock them up.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
skypuppy 1
mistercwoodI don't get how quite a few people keep going with the "he was trying to beat GZ to death" bit. I got mugged about 6 years ago. Three guys, one of them had a telescopic baton. My injuries were worse than GZs. It was a very unpleasant experience. But at no point did I think they were actually trying to kill me. I really have a hard time with what appears to be a cultural acceptance that it's perfectly ok to end a fist fight with a gunshot.
I get and agree that what Zimmerman did was, ultimately, legal. I'm still not convinced it was right.
Under law, he has to be in fear of his life 'or serious injury'. Doesn't really matter if he did or didn't think he'd die - fear of being more seriously injured is enuf justification. And frankly, he was entirely justified upping the ante after being unjustifiably attacked...
If he'd picked the fight, yes, it would have been different. He didn't. He was a resident in a neighborhood plagued by home invasions and robberies, who saw someone he didn't recognize who seemed to be acting strangely ('on drugs') and so he decided to keep an eye on him until the police got there. Perfectly justified in my book. And legally.
TM shouldn't have attacked him.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
rushmc 23
QuoteTM shouldn't have attacked him.
Had he taken your advise, and used a minute and a half to go to his house rather than the 4 minutes to circle around and confront GZ, he would still be here today
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
OHCHUTE 0
mistercwoodI don't get how quite a few people keep going with the "he was trying to beat GZ to death" bit. I got mugged about 6 years ago. Three guys, one of them had a telescopic baton. My injuries were worse than GZs. It was a very unpleasant experience. But at no point did I think they were actually trying to kill me. I really have a hard time with what appears to be a cultural acceptance that it's perfectly ok to end a fist fight with a gunshot.
I get and agree that what Zimmerman did was, ultimately, legal. I'm still not convinced it was right.
Guess you've never fought for your life:
You've seen ultimate fighting: Z was pinned. His nose was broke. Z had no way out but to use his weapon to avert loosing his life perhaps. I gather the screeme was when Z's nose was broke as getting a broken nose is painful. It was pretty clear TM was still on top of Z after Z's nose was broke. Absolutely all events up to the broken nose, the first degree assault, had no bearing on this case. Z actions when on the ground, were right and legal. Unless of course if you are a liberal, then you should have just taken a beating.
DanG 1
QuoteHad he taken your advise, and used a minute and a half to go to his house rather than the 4 minutes to circle around and confront GZ, he would still be here today
And yet again, you all must insist that you know exactly how the fight started when you don't.
It's bordering on obsession.
- Dan G
DanGQuoteHad he taken your advise, and used a minute and a half to go to his house rather than the 4 minutes to circle around and confront GZ, he would still be here today
And yet again, you all must insist that you know exactly how the fight started when you don't.
It's bordering on obsession.
Yeah....everybody is wrong - but you of course!
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
rushmc 23
DanGQuoteHad he taken your advise, and used a minute and a half to go to his house rather than the 4 minutes to circle around and confront GZ, he would still be here today
And yet again, you all must insist that you know exactly how the fight started when you don't.
It's bordering on obsession.
The only obsession is yours toward me
And I am basing my opinion on the eveidence presented during the trial and before
Evidence that from the very beginning backed up GZ's version of what happened
You got anything more?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
DanG 1
QuoteYeah....everybody is wrong - but you of course!
Well, actually, yes. I'm not wrong because I recognize that the only person who knows how that fight started is George Zimmerman. I also recognize that we can't take his account at face value. Everyone who insists that they know Martin started it, just like everyone who insists that they know Zimerman started it, is wrong.
Why is that so hard for people to grasp?
- Dan G
DanG 1
QuoteAnd I am basing my opinion on the eveidence presented during the trial and before
Evidence that from the very beginning backed up GZ's version of what happened
There is absolutely no evidence (besides Zimmerman's unsworn statements) about how the fight started. None.
- Dan G
Gonna have to talk to the FLOTUS about that
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites