After their victims are already dead. Don’t you think there might be some sort of sense in prevention?
There are, as you well know. George Zimmerman does exist, and so does that Law Abiding Citizen who defended himself against that vicious popcorn attack. The SYG laws do enable them. Now where are all the lives they save? Are there any cases you can point to? If not, and the evidence is therefore that SYG costs lives, why wouldn’t you support repealing them?
Here’s another proud home/gun-owner protecting his hearth and home … from snow.
Call the NRA; chalk up one more DGU.
Neither of which I was talking about. You will get no argument from me that availability of guns does increase suicides and probably increases one-off murders (in our culture, at least).
I hope I don’t seem disingenuous when I say that on most days, I am in at least one situation where I could kill or maim more people than the average mass shooter by flooring my accelerator and driving up the sidewalk for half a block. And I don’t even live IN the city.
Good. The incorrect claim about suicides is one that has been made by Dopers defending the Second Commandment.
So why don’t more mass murderers kill that way? Several reasons:
[ul][li] It’s much less easy to target specific people.[/li][li] Shooter remains in control; rampaging driver does not.[/li][li] Shooter may be able to control his death or even escape; Driver is at mercy of chance and may end up alive and mangled.[/li][li] Shooting may be much more “enjoyable” (e.g. relishing witnessing “enemy” deaths)[/li][/ul]
Bombing avoids 2 of the 4 listed problems of mayhem driving but adds others, e.g. difficulty and dangers of building and installing a bomb.
Admittedly, I’m the callous motherfucker (who suffers from currently-controlled major depressive disorder) who thinks suicide stats are neutral in terms of judging the risk factors associated with things that are also suicide methods.
I disagree with your assessment a bit. I think the relevant points are
[ul]
[li]It’s perceived as easier[/li][li]It conforms to imagery prevalent in our society at present[/li][/ul]
I don’t see any particular reason running up on a clear sidewalk at 40 mph in a city street is LESS in control or risky than whipping out a firearm and opening fire. And frankly, if I were the kind of sick fuck who went on a murder rampage, having seen both car accident victims and (animal) gunshot victims, the car seems WAY more satisfying to me. Societal messaging and movies might disagree.
That’s a morbid thought–how many massacre shooters find themselves vaguely disappointed because people don’t fly back or explode in bloody mayhem like they do in the movies.
You’re a fucking failure at examples. It could have easily been a snow shovel.
Or a snow blower; or they could have been building a snowman in his drive way. Either way nothing Mr. Remington can’t fix, amirite?
Perhaps.
I don’t know how every stand your ground law works but I agree that the one in Florida is likely to be detrimental to gun rights. The notion that the prosecutor has to prove that a homicide wasn’t self defense turn on its head the notion that self defense is an affirmative defense, one the defendant has to prove.
What claim is that?
IANAL, but I think that’s conflating two slightly different things. Stand Your Ground, as I understand it, is the principle that a self-defense claim doesn’t have to meet the burden of proving that the defendant took active steps to avoid the fatal confrontation; e.g. “avoiding bad neighborhoods”, etc., if you’re out in public minding your own lawful business. This is something else from the principle that not everything that produces a dead person is ipso facto murder or manslaughter unless the elements of those crimes are proven. Florida has both principles established in their law, but iirc Stand Your Ground wasn’t even an issue in the Zimmerman case; Zimmerman claimed he shot in self-defense and no compelling evidence that that wasn’t the case was produced.
You’re right. The fucked up Florida rule regarding the shifting of the burden of proof in self defense is not stand your ground. But its still a fucked up part of Florida law. SYG just means you don’t have to retreat when confronted with danger.
There is this case
Yep…guns are certainly great for defending your car against the depredations of those dangerous eggs…
Obvious DGU is obvious.
Too bad the shooter wasn’t white. He could have invoked Stand Your Ground if so.
Isn’t amazing how, since Zimmerman and Stand Your Ground and all that shit, people seem to feel much more uninhibited in pulling out their guns and blazing away all wrapped up in the NRA-authorized mantra, “I was in fear for my life.” It’s almost like they realize how easy it will be to get away with killing folks now when they get pissed off. Hell, you can even shoot someone, flee and when the cops catch up with you, you don’t even end up in custody.
And don’t try to tell me that it’s reasonable to be in fear for your life when you get into a argument in the middle of Walmart. This wasn’t some eerie gated-comuunity sidewalk in the darkness or a scary convenience store parking lot being inundated with rap-crap. Shit, I can remember the days when pulling out a gun during a fistfight was thuggery and pussy move. Not now it seems; it’s gone 180 and it’s now in the playbook for righteousness.
I think Stand Your Ground is justified in this case; you can get Salmonella from those things. It was a clear attack with biological weapons.
Yeah? Were you a Shark or a Jet?
I was in a combo-gang. The Shets.
Better than the other gang, the Jerks.