Did you miss that it was Trayvon Martin who started the fight (at least, according to the available evidence)? If Zimmerman had started the fight, he likely would have been convicted.
Try this: which of these acts are criminal violations in Florida?
A) following someone you don’t know in public
B) calling 911
C) getting out of your vehicle to read a street sign
D) punching someone in the face
E) banging someone’s head on the sidewalk
F) trying to take someone’s gun away from them
G) shooting your attacker while he’s on top of you doing the ol’ ground-and-pound
An attacker may be deterred by the mere prospect of attacking people who may be armed. A would-be spree killer may begin shooting and then be stopped before he kills as many as he otherwise might have.
Did your own use of critical thought somehow miss those possibilities when you rhetorically asked what the point was?
As mentioned above, this is a misrepresentation of the facts of the case, as established by the evidence.
The police dispatcher said, in response to Zimmerman’s saying that he was following Martin, “We don’t need you to do that”. This has no legal force, and ZImmerman was not breaking the law in following Martin. Nor did this give Martin the legal right to attack Zimmerman.
Further, Zimmerman was not following Martin when Martin attacked him. Zimmerman said, “These assholes, they always get away”, indicating that Martin had gotten away and Zimmerman was no longer following him. Dee Dee’s testimony backs this up, since she testified that Martin had said that he had lost Zimmerman, and was right by his father’s house. Then Martin doubled back and went looking for Zimmerman, then confronted and attacked him.
Zimmerman did not get out of his car to follow or attack Martin. He got out in order to determine a street name or house number, so he could rendezvous with the police, who were on their way.
Martin started the fight, not Zimmerman. So what you got from the case is wrong.
The NRA have been promoting the philosophy of “Be armed at all times for safety; against bad guys with guns”
The only way this makes sense is if you can shoot someone before they shoot someone else.
[/QUOTE]
This is obviously wrong. There is no more need to proactively shoot people before they attack you than there is to proactively kick people before they attack you.
No method of self-defense can be applied except in a situation where a reasonable person would fear death or serious bodily injury. The notion that simply owning a legal firearm makes you react unreasonably is silly. That may be why it is that we get bizarre hypotheticals, or misrepresention of the facts in actual cases of gun self-defense.
Actually, gun handling safety *can *be summed up in the 4 basic safety rules and if those rules are followed, or even 3 are followed safety is achieved. However, I could easily put a two-hour presentation together expanding on those 4 rules so obviously there’s more to the discussion than those simple rules.
Gun people (nuts if you will) tend to see everybody who isn’t 100% on board with the NRA as evil gun banners and non-gun people tend to see gun nuts as testosterone fueled morons itching to pull the trigger. As with most things the truth lies somewhere between the extremes.
Gun muggles isn’t meant (by me at least) as a put-down. To me it just means someone whose experience with guns is limited to TV and movies, (ie. someone who thinks Glocks sound like 12 gauge pump shotguns when the slide is racked and that the proper way to carry a pistol is shoved down the pants without a holster).
When a reasonable person would fear imminent death or serious injury. That’s why, even if you are in fear of the damage someone carrying a gun could hypothetically do to you, that threat is not imminent, so you are not justified in taking action against them.
To front-carry an AR IMO comes very close to brandishing. I agree with most ( all?) here that Tom would do time for this, but it is much easier to call that if the gun were carried on the back, preferably muzzle down.
If Jerry were to enter the MickeyD while holding a handgun in his hand, even muzzle down, I think Tom will go free a lot of the times, probably most.
Race only matters insofar that Tom is more likely to make a case that he believed Jerry’s intent was a mass shooting with a white Jerry - such assaults, best I can tell, are predominantly carried out by white males.
What if Tom was sitting at home, and Jerry is in his back yard, banging on his back door, while one-point sling front-carrying an AR?
You are saying that the NRAs position is based on either “If everybody is armed, then the insane will be deterred” or “When that spree killer shows up I’ll be able to hit him, after he kills someone”?
That is even more narcissistic and goofy than I already allowed.
I was saying that your initial analysis asserted there were two possibilities. I demonstrated there were others, highlighting your use of the logical fallacy “false dilemma.”
Rather than conceding error, you have doubled down, trying to fit my examples in to another set of “Either this, or that,” which is the same fallacious reasoning.
So again I will point out that there are many nuanced positions fairly inferenced from the NRA’s core platform.
How is that not brandishing? Let’s suppose a third party, named DICK, is also carrying. He is seated with his back to JERRY, so he doesn’t see him enter with his rifle. But he is facing TOM, and notices him reach into his jacket and handle a gun. Is DICK justified in pre-emptively shooting TOM?
This why I think carrying in public is a useless exercise which endangers innocent bystanders without conferring any real security to the carrier. If you have to wait until that split second between wondering if the threat is real, and realizing you are too late to save yourself, what is the point in carrying a gun? It is hard enough for trained law enforcement to make those calls, but expecting every TOM, DICK and JERRY that can afford a firearm to possess that same discretion is placing us all in greater danger than from the criminals they are pretending to defend themselves from in the first place.
If I were king, I would ban any public carry, concealed or otherwise outside very tightly regulated, well trained law enforcement or private security that can demonstrate a compelling need to be armed. Self defense in an urban environment is an illusion.
Originally Posted by Lumpy
TOM would be not only justified but prudent in reaching into his jacket, unsnapping his holster, taking any manual safety off his gun and taking his gun in hand, being ready to draw and fire.
Because the law says it’s not. At least where I live it isn’t.
I guess it didn’t fit your example perfectly since the would be mass killer didn’t actually kill anyone first. That fits into your whole false dilemma problem that **Bricker **mentions.
How is having an unsnapped holster “brandishing”? In most states one isn’t even required to carry a handgun in a holster.
How is having a manual safety turned off “brandishing”? Most modern handguns don’t even have manual safeties. I don’t know of any states that require having a safety activated.
How is having ones hand on a holstered weapon “brandishing”?
You admittedly don’t like armed people so you make these things up ?
Your use of logical fallacy jargon is an avoidance of the issue. I would no more use that than I would a smiley emoticon. but TEHO.
You can use all the buzzwords in the dictionary.
I was reducing, arguendo, ad absurdum . You grabbed the football. Fair enough, but then I outlined what you seemed to be saying and you claimed I “doubled down”
What is the problem here that noone ever gets to any point. you may give an argument for the NRAs platform of arming. That’s how you demonstrate a false dilemma, and how you win arguments.
There never is a nuance is there? Are you wiling to give it up?