I’ll just add that until we hear more explanations from the jury as to why they made their decision(if we ever do since none are under any obligation to step forward) we should hold off before assuming why they made their decisions.
We haven’t heard from either of the initial two jurors who voted not guilty on the murder charge or the third one who joined in, nor do we know anything about them. We don’t know their ages, occupations, education levels, genders, or even races(yeah I’m sure most of us assume they’re white, but we certainly don’t know that and shouldn’t assume that). It’s certainly possible, though unlikely the initial jurors who voted no were the only two black jurors.
i don’t know if it has been pointed out, i assume it has, but the best way to “not do this again” would be to not make a Zimmerman thread, wouldn’t it?
That’s a totally unreasonable standard, and is never going to be achieved - you will never get all of the guns out of the hands of all of the undesirables - even countries with strong gun control laws, and historically low rates of gun ownership have not achieved this.
It’s not going to be 80%. Or 50%. You might get to 20%, but I doubt it.
We could have a data duel over that, but I think it’s really naive to even think you’d be able to substantially reduce gun possession with things like background checks. Most guns possessed illegally are simply stolen or bought from those who stole or smuggled them, not legal purchases.
You’re welcome to create your own standard, but I’m saying you won’t achieve it. You won’t get meaningful reduction in gun possession with these laws alone.
How do you propose to reduce illegal purchases? Wouldn’t tighter regulation and enforcement be warranted? How are comprehensive background checks not a part of that?
I said more than that. The point is that most are not from legal sales that a background check could stop.
They are a PART of it, sure, but not sufficient.
This is where the two possible solutions diverge. You could seriously crack down on gun possession. Or you could deter illegal use of guns by relaxing gun possession laws for self-defense.
I don’t think background checks alone are enough to satisfy either side of that debate.
Those are not the only options. Since most guns used in crimes come from illegal sales by legal gun dealers, clearly licensed gun dealers should be subject to more regulation and enforcement.
I still don’t think you can get it to the point where law-abiding people can walk around thinking they are always going to be safer from gun violence than they might be if they had the option to arm themselves in self-defense, depending on the neighborhood of course.
Because self defense is an illusion. I am just waiting for the case where two guys scare each other, draw guns and wound each other, and both claim self defense. I do not want to devolve into a society where justice goes to the guy with the fastest trigger finger.
In the rather unlikely scenario that two people do manage to put each other in imminent fear of death, without either breaking the law, what should the law say regarding self defence?
You didn’t ask me, but personally I’d breathe a lot easier if the law made it abundantly clear to good guys and drunken assholes alike that deadly force shouldn’t be considered a first resort in any conflict.
The burden of proof should be on anyone firing a gun to prove it was self defense. If gunslingers want to claim they are the victim of a crime and were defending themselves, they don’t leave the scene and go back to their motel without calling the police.
Nope. The burden of proof that someone’s committed a crime should always, and solely, be on the state. But now we’re back to where we started, ignoring basic rules like the presumption of innocence. There’s really no discussing this with people like you who don’t understand the necessity of such rules to protect ourselves, not to protect potential criminals.
Self defence is a right, not a privilege, and should be treated as such.
Like hell you do. You just think you do. If someone was trying to kill you, you wouldn’t get permission before you fought back.
OTOH, I think that using self-defense as a legal defense needs more proof than a simple claim that it was so. And I think the danger needs to be such that any reasonable person would also perceive the danger. The problem with that is that it threatens to open up a whole new branch of law, practically, and I’m not sure at all that that is a good idea.