Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[Tero]

We are off the Z case, I just did not find the old gun thread. Mods can move the last post if so needed.

But Z was in fact a gun nut. Clue: gun nuts solve "problems" with a gun.

[Seth]

Some people somewhere may fall under your statistics. You will have to convince me that gun nuts in the street are a benefit to me. I have no control over them. Even if they are 60% good and 40% loose cannons.

The facts belie your paranoia. The "loose cannon" rate of law-abiding concealed-weapons licensees is approximately 0.008%. In Florida, which was the first state to allow "shall issue" CCW in 1987, only 6400 of more than 2 million permits have been revoked, and of those, only 168 have been revoked due to the use of a firearm in a crime.

And you have no control over anyone (nor should you have any such control), including criminals, so your argument is fallacious. The law controls people, and it happens that concealed carry permittees are by far more law-abiding than even the general public, which has an overall rate of criminality of about 15%.

II. EFFECTS OF CONCEALED CARRY ON PUBLIC SAFETY

While there is disagreement over the benefits of carrying concealed weapons, many believe that robust concealed carry laws ultimately deter crime by making criminal acts much more risky and costly for potential law breakers. Statistics show a connection between concealed carry laws and a decrease in violent crime rates. The National Rifle Association estimates, based on data from the FBI's Annual Uniform Crime Report, that `right-to-carry' states (i.e., those that widely allow concealed carry) have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, as compared to the rest of the country. 4
[Footnote] A study of the effect of concealed carry laws on crime rates, published in 1997, estimated that `[w]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 7.65 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.' 5

[Footnote] The general conclusion of this study, that concealed weapons deter crime, has been replicated and confirmed by other scholars. 6

[Footnote]

[Footnote 4: See http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets ... &issue=003.]

[Footnote 5: John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Crime, Deterrence, and Right to Carry Concealed Handguns, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 1, 19 (1997). This study also found that concealed carry laws and the accompanying decline in violence crime lead to significant financial savings. Id. at 64 (`The estimated annual gain in 1992 from allowing concealed handguns was over $5.74 billion.').]

[Footnote 6: See Don B. Kates, Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?, 30 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 649, 658 n.30 (2007) (`Several critics have now replicated Lott's work using additional or different data, additional control variables, or new or different statistical techniques they deem superior to those Lott used. Interestingly, the replications all confirm Lott's general conclusions; some even find that Lott underestimated the crime-reductive effects of allowing good citizens to carry concealed guns.').]

The use of firearms in self defense is prevalent. According to the National Self Defense Survey, conducted by criminologists from Florida State University, Americans use guns in self defense an estimated 2.2 to 2.5 million times a year, or every 13 seconds. 7

[Footnote] This same study found that, in general, simply brandishing a gun or firing a warning shot is sufficient to defend against an attacker in most cases of self defense involving a firearm. Only 24 percent of people surveyed reported firing a gun in self defense, and just 8 percent reported wounding an assailant with a gun. 8

[Footnote]

[Footnote 7: See Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self Defense with a Gun, 86 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 150, 164 (1995).]

[Footnote 8: Id. at 173.]

There is also little evidence that law-abiding permit holders are a threat to public safety. The state of Florida, which has issued over 2 million concealed carry permits since it adopted a `right-to-carry' law in 1987, has revoked just 6,400 permits (just 0.3 percent of the total issued permits) and just 168 concealed carry permits were revoked due to the use of a firearm in a crime (just 0.008 percent). 9

[Footnote]

[Footnote 9: See Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapon/Firearm Summary Report, http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cwX monthly.html.]


Source:Committee Reports
112th Congress (2011-2012)
House Report 112-277
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/? ... =TOC_10311&

[Tero]

Quote Defense Survey, conducted by criminologists from Florida State University, Americans use guns in self defense an estimated 2.2 to 2.5 million times a year, or every 13 seconds.

Yes, those are the places I plan not to be at. All those locations are a potential hazard to me.

[laklak]

But Z was in fact a gun nut. Clue: gun nuts solve "problems" with a gun.

Depends on the problem. For example, my outboard has been difficult to start after running for a while. I used socket wrenches, screwdrivers, crescent wrenches and a pair of pliers. New fuel filters, plugs and a carb adjustment did the trick. I will admit I thought about shooting the recalcitrant bitch a couple of times, though. Fucking 2 strokes.

However, if confronted by a home intruder I'd probably use the 12 gauge and leave the sockets in the garage.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Those of us saying there is reasonable doubt based on the evidence we are privy to so far are the ones waiting. Yet you attack me instead of kiki or mai, ay? Why? Why don't you address the fact that THEY won't wait for the jury? Why don't you address the fact that THEY won't even bring themselves to admit that there is any doubt as to Zimmerman's responsibility?

I've already explained this to you. This will be the last time I abet your mental laziness by repeating myself to you. You've done this in one other thread to me, consistently ignoring simple points with the imperious wave of a hand, and I'm not interested in throwing eggs at your brick walls.

I'm not saying that your mistakes are on a par with those you listed from Mai, Kiki, and others, but the fact is you listed them already and they needed no further airing in my post. You've made good points on some of the fallacies being pandered, for whatever my opinion is worth here.

Have a nice evening, now.

[FBM]

Quote Defense Survey, conducted by criminologists from Florida State University, Americans use guns in self defense an estimated 2.2 to 2.5 million times a year, or every 13 seconds.

Yes, those are the places I plan not to be at. All those locations are a potential hazard to me.

Alright, but some people have to live in those places. Not everybody has the financial resources to pick and choose where they want to live. If everyone moved out of those places, then the problems would just spread to new places. Wolves migrate with the sheep. No sheep, no wolves. People willing to defend themselves aren't sheep. (I believe this could be applied to either Zimm or Martin at this point, since we still don't really know enough about what happened that night.)

[amused]

... However, if confronted by a home intruder I'd probably use the 12 gauge and leave the sockets in the garage.

I don't know, if you're handy with PVC pipe and an air compressor, I could see being able to lay down a withering hail of sockets. A 3/4" socket coming out of a pipe at high speed might sting a bit.

[Coito ergo sum]

We are off the Z case, I just did not find the old gun thread. Mods can move the last post if so needed.

But Z was in fact a gun nut. Clue: gun nuts solve "problems" with a gun.

Your evidence for him being a gun nut is? The mere fact that he had a gun.

[Coito ergo sum]

Those of us saying there is reasonable doubt based on the evidence we are privy to so far are the ones waiting. Yet you attack me instead of kiki or mai, ay? Why? Why don't you address the fact that THEY won't wait for the jury? Why don't you address the fact that THEY won't even bring themselves to admit that there is any doubt as to Zimmerman's responsibility?

I've already explained this to you. This will be the last time I abet your mental laziness by repeating myself to you. You've done this in one other thread to me, consistently ignoring simple points with the imperious wave of a hand, and I'm not interested in throwing eggs at your brick walls.

In point of fact, the post you linked to does not explain why you do not address the fact that they won't wait for the jury, but you claim that I, who is waiting for the evidence to be presented to the jury, because I haven't drawn a conclusion either way yet, am not waiting for evidence to be presented to the jury.

My mental laziness? You not only make false statements of fact, but you don't even care that you do so. You don't care what the facts are, and you've proven that by not addressing the 7 abundantly clear points that I identified where you simply, and plainly, misstate what the available evidence shows.

Imperious hand? At least I address your points as you present them. You ignore all but that which you care to respond to, and then you make the absolutely balls-out ludicrous claim that the link you just provided takes us to a post where you provided an answer to my question? You can't really believe it.

I'm not saying that your mistakes are on a par with those you listed from Mai, Kiki, and others, but the fact is you listed them already and they needed no further airing in my post. You've made good points on some of the fallacies being pandered, for whatever my opinion is worth here.

Have a nice evening, now.

LOL -- in other words, you won't address the actual facts, because you know you you (a) claim to be "waiting for the evidence to be presented to the jury" while drawing conclusions based on misstatements of the evidence and based on facts not in evidence, and (b) you come after me, who adopts the "Reasonable Doubt" position, at the present time, and claim that I am the one not waiting for the jury, yet you say nothing to those who are sure Zimmerman is responsible and guilty. To you, drawing the conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty now -- that, in your mind, is "waiting for the evidence to be presented to the jury." Whereas, holding the position that we don't know for sure now, that's "not waiting for the jury."

That is your argument.

[Tyrannical]

Quote Defense Survey, conducted by criminologists from Florida State University, Americans use guns in self defense an estimated 2.2 to 2.5 million times a year, or every 13 seconds.

Yes, those are the places I plan not to be at. All those locations are a potential hazard to me.

Alright, but some people have to live in those places. Not everybody has the financial resources to pick and choose where they want to live. If everyone moved out of those places, then the problems would just spread to new places. Wolves migrate with the sheep. No sheep, no wolves. People willing to defend themselves aren't sheep. (I believe this could be applied to either Zimm or Martin at this point, since we still don't really know enough about what happened that night.)

Gosh, that sounds like the cycle of White flight.
Blacks start to move into an all White neighborhood, Whites start to move out. That allows more Blacks to move in causing more Whites to move out. Eventually the area is virtually destroyed once the Black population gets high enough. Then they leave their now destroyed neighborhoods in search of more White neighborhoods. But then some brave industrious Whites start to move back into the previously destroyed areas, buy them up and rebuild in a process called gentrification. Then the cycle repeats.
Since we track demographics in the US, you can plot any urban area like Detroit or Chicago's decline to hard population statistics.

[mistermack]

There are a few fallacies that keep getting repeated on this thread.
Firstly, that because carrying a gun is legal, it's normal, or somehow a necessary precaution.
No it's not. Most little old ladies don't carry them. Most young kids don't carry them. Most girls don't carry them. And lead just as safe an existence as the gun carriers.

It's not normal or necessary, it's a sign of the mindset of the person carrying the gun. It's EVIDENCE in this case.

Secondly, that because shooting someone to save your life is legal, it's treated as normal behaviour. No it's not.
Normal behaviour would be, instead of all that theatrical screaming, to shout that you have a gun, with the intention of deterring the attack. That's what I would do.

Zimmerman's behaviour might or might not be legal, but it's not NORMAL to just whip out a gun and kill someone. Even if you're getting punched. Fights happen all the time. He's an ex-bouncer, for heaven's sake.

If SAYING he had a gun was not enough, he still had the option of pointing it, and threatening to shoot, without pulling the trigger.

All of his behaviour, the following, the too theatrical screaming, the lack of warning, and the sudden shooting, points to a purpose. He wanted to kill a punk and be a hero.

[Coito ergo sum]

There are a few fallacies that keep getting repeated on this thread.
Firstly, that because carrying a gun is legal, it's normal, or somehow a necessary precaution.

You're the only one who has said that. So, that hasn't been "repeated on this thread."

No it's not. Most little old ladies don't carry them. Most young kids don't carry them. Most girls don't carry them. And lead just as safe an existence as the gun carriers.

"Most" =/= "normal and "minority" =/= "abnormal."

It's not normal or necessary, it's a sign of the mindset of the person carrying the gun. It's EVIDENCE in this case.

Carrying a gun is a sign of the mindset of the person carrying the gun. Nice bootstrapping.

Secondly, that because shooting someone to save your life is legal, it's treated as normal behaviour. No it's not.

Shooting someone to save your life is legal. Whether it's "normal" behavior is purely a matter of opinion. The Amish think it's sinful and wrong to shoot someone to save one's life. I disagree with them on that point.

Normal behaviour would be, instead of all that theatrical screaming, to shout that you have a gun, with the intention of deterring the attack. That's what I would do.

I suppose if you have that opportunity, yes. There are circumstances in which that opportunity may not be available, and according to Zimmerman he was jumped by Martin quickly.

Zimmerman's behaviour might or might not be legal, but it's not NORMAL to just whip out a gun and kill someone.

It is if a person is being attacked by the other person, if the attacker has you down on the ground and is beating your face mixed martial arts style and hitting your head against the concrete ground. Then there may not be time for discussion, and at close quarters to delay firing may allow the attacker to disarm you. So, if that is what happened, then it would be quite normal to draw and fire.

Even if you're getting punched. Fights happen all the time. He's an ex-bouncer, for heaven's sake.

If SAYING he had a gun was not enough, he still had the option of pointing it, and threatening to shoot, without pulling the trigger.

If they were standing apart from each other, sure. But, with a person on top of him, and being beaten, there isn't that opportunity, if indeed that's what was happening. Obviously, if that's not true, and Zimmerman was standing a distance from Martin, and before Martin got to him he could have said "stop! I'm armed and I will shoot you!" Then that sort of thing may be advisable.

All of his behaviour, the following, the too theatrical screaming, the lack of warning, and the sudden shooting, points to a purpose. He wanted to kill a punk and be a hero.

"Too theatrical screaming" is your own bias coloring the facts. There is no evidence at the moment of any theatrics.

The following, at least arguably, stopped when the dispatcher said to stop.

There may not have been time for a warning, if as Zimmerman said, Martin attacked Zimmerman without warning.

The shooting may have had to be sudden, because Zimmerman was being beaten up and was on his back being punched in the face and had his head beaten on the ground. That is a possibility here.

[FBM]

Quote Defense Survey, conducted by criminologists from Florida State University, Americans use guns in self defense an estimated 2.2 to 2.5 million times a year, or every 13 seconds.

Yes, those are the places I plan not to be at. All those locations are a potential hazard to me.

Alright, but some people have to live in those places. Not everybody has the financial resources to pick and choose where they want to live. If everyone moved out of those places, then the problems would just spread to new places. Wolves migrate with the sheep. No sheep, no wolves. People willing to defend themselves aren't sheep. (I believe this could be applied to either Zimm or Martin at this point, since we still don't really know enough about what happened that night.)

Gosh, that sounds like the cycle of White flight.
Blacks start to move into an all White neighborhood, Whites start to move out. That allows more Blacks to move in causing more Whites to move out. Eventually the area is virtually destroyed once the Black population gets high enough. Then they leave their now destroyed neighborhoods in search of more White neighborhoods. But then some brave industrious Whites start to move back into the previously destroyed areas, buy them up and rebuild in a process called gentrification. Then the cycle repeats.
Since we track demographics in the US, you can plot any urban area like Detroit or Chicago's decline to hard population statistics.

You seem intent upon drawing that line on racial grounds. I don't. It's criminals and non-criminals for me. There are plenty of non-black criminals to go around. Hell, I can look within my family and find a goodly handful.

[tattuchu]

But Z was in fact a gun nut. Clue: gun nuts solve "problems" with a gun.

Depends on the problem. For example, my outboard has been difficult to start after running for a while. I used socket wrenches, screwdrivers, crescent wrenches and a pair of pliers. New fuel filters, plugs and a carb adjustment did the trick. I will admit I thought about shooting the recalcitrant bitch a couple of times, though. Fucking 2 strokes.

However, if confronted by a home intruder I'd probably use the 12 gauge and leave the sockets in the garage.

Honest to Christ, there are some creatively clever bastards here. This place is always good for some genuine laughs

[kiki5711]

But Z was in fact a gun nut. Clue: gun nuts solve "problems" with a gun.

Depends on the problem. For example, my outboard has been difficult to start after running for a while. I used socket wrenches, screwdrivers, crescent wrenches and a pair of pliers. New fuel filters, plugs and a carb adjustment did the trick. I will admit I thought about shooting the recalcitrant bitch a couple of times, though. Fucking 2 strokes.

However, if confronted by a home intruder I'd probably use the 12 gauge and leave the sockets in the garage.

Honest to Christ, there are some creatively clever bastards here. This place is always good for some genuine laughs

I have about 12 swords around the house, (my husband's and my hobby) some bigger than others, some hanging as decoration on our walls. I wonder if I would be quick enough to grab one to defend myself with it? A few are quite heavy too, but all I'd need is one good jab and they're gone.