Is the "Stand Your Ground Law" becoming a license to kill?

I'm not sure how many firearm discharges there are annually, but roughly 30,000 Americans die from gunshot wounds every year.

By way of comparison the figure for the UK was 39 last year. I consider that disparity not insignificant.

Don't get me wrong, I am not attempting to tell you how you should run your society - what works very well in the UK, may not in a society where everyone and his dog appears to own a gun. But I respect Sadanie for his/her concerns about gun deaths in your society, and I think pro-gun Americans should be a little more accomodating of other opinions, and perhaps a touch less defensive.

 

I respect that you seem to not be as extreme as too many members in this forum who seem to believe that guns are the answer to all, and obviously consider the "right" to bear firearms as more important than the human right to life!

And you are correct that, in this country, one can collect anything, including deadly weapons and stocks of amno. .. Just because. . . .!

My concern is, how wise is that, when you read some of the asinine, illogical comments made by some gun addicts in this forum, and their aggressive defense of shootings, almost anywhere, any time?

Does THAT make you feel secure?

 

Nothing you or I do is going to make us secure against idiots. Are some gun owners idiots? Well yes, of course they are. Just as some car collectors are idiots and they get in their little cars and drive 150 mph putting everyone on the road in danger. Should we outlaw collecting cars to make you feel more secure? The answer of course is no.

I do believe that we need to do a better job in a few areas of "gun control"

One thing that irks me is that anyone would carry a semi automatic assault style weapon around on a sling in the open in light of recent events just to prove some sort of stupid point. In my opinion those people should be charged with a crime. Reckless endangerment seems to fit the bill since they are literally scaring the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of people and causing them to act irrationally. Someone will end up getting killed in one of these instances and then what happens? People come in screaming about guns killing people .

Guns haven't ever, and indeed can NOT kill a person. They can ONLY be used as a tool to kill. We read these truly tragic stories of children getting a hold of a gun and killing a sibling and such. that's not the gun's fault. That's the parents fault. My guns (save one pistol kept in my nightstand and equipped with this http://www.opticsplanet.com/pro-lok...ved-trigger-gun-lock-keyed-alike-gl650ka.html) are all kept in a room in the basement that is especially equipped for gun storage, and includes a biometric lock on the door that ONLY my wife or I can open.

Plenty of gun owners take similar precautions. We're not all raving lunatics looking for an excuse to plug someone.

 

I mostly agree with you. However, that old silly saying about "gun don't kill people, people do," is very myopic, since it is obvious that those people would not have been killed if people were not HOLDING those guns. .. While it takes a finger to activate a gun, a finger without a gun would not kill.

 

Untrue. A mentally unstable person who is compelled to kill will do so with or without a gun. I concede that the gun makes it EASIER for them to kill, but the lack of a gun wouldn't stop killings.

In fact, it may interest you to know that "only" 72% of homicides in the US are committed with firearms of ANY sort

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

and I would ask that you PARTICULARLY look at the number as concerns rifles, it is actually QUITE low.

 

The UK's stats show that of the 146 gun deaths in 2011, about 64% of them are suicides whereas in the US, about 74% of that 30k or so are suicides. We have a bigger population and a bigger problem with gang or drug related crime, where most of the shootings occur.

 

Let's put it this way, if you wanted to kill someone in broad daylight with the only repercussion probably being a court hearing and losing your guns you're going to want to be in a state with a stand your ground law.

 

Not far enough. It needs to be expanded so southern inbread neighbors can stand around and watch you shoot accidental tresspassers, and if you don't, they get to shoot you for *not* standing your ground.

 

Sorry, I was talking about 2012 and about gun homicides.

So dealing with gun homicides, in the year 2012 the USA had 9,146 and the UK had 41. the USA has 310 million people and the UK has 63 million. A ratio of roughly 5 to 1. So by my calculation, the USA should have no more than 205 gun murders. There is still an enormous disparity.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

 

Calling 911 would be the appropriate response.

But going outside to confront the person is dumb.

What if the old man had been a decoy and others had been hiding and ambushed the homeowner then robbed him and raped his wife?

Any way you look at it, the homeowner made some dumb decisions that night/early morning.

 

LOL.

But yet George Zimmerman did exactly that and you support him.

Oh let me guess you only support George because he murdered an unarmed black teenager.

 

The "unarmed black teenager " threw the first punch. Yes or no?

 

Dear God.

George Zimmerman was in his truck when he first spotted Trayvon.

George Zimmerman had already followed Trayvon in his truck before he stopped and called NEN.

There was no reason for George Zimmerman to leave his truck and follow Trayvon because he didn't see Trayvon committing any crime.

George Zimmerman admitted that Trayvon ran away from him, and that he followed Trayvon. He even lied about continuing to follow Trayvon.

George Zimmerman should have been convicted of at least manslaughter because he set everything in motion that night.

 

Yes , George did that as his head was being bashed on the ground and face being punched . Yawn , that was easy .

 

Love your sense of humor!

- - - Updated - - -

NO ONE KNOWS. .and no one will ever know!

 

You just said that George should not have gotten out of his car unless there was a threat.

Trayvon was no threat but he perceived George as a threat and he acted accordingly like any other human would have, but you have no proof that George's head was bashed to the ground or he was even punched in the face.

But keep believing George's lies if it helps you believe that it's ok to murder an unarmed teenager just because.

 

A trial has come and gone , I don't need to " believe his lies" , it seems like you are having a hard time dealing with it . I'll say it one more time , the incident didn't become life threatening or dangerous till the physical confrontation happened. Walking in your own neighborhood , especially as NW, does not constitute someone walking outside and shooting someone as in the discussed case . If you can't figure out the difference , oh well. It is actually your boy trayvon who mimicked the story in the OP , but used his fist and concrete instead of a gun . Unfortunately for him , his victim was carrying a gun .

 

SYG wasn't meant to allow people to murder someone ringing a doorbell outside a home. It's meant to be used as protection for the person who comes under threat of physical harm with potential for death and must use force to protect themselves. When the choice becomes death or no death for the potential victim, that's when SYG should apply. It's meant as a last resort.

SYG isn't a license to kill. The person who killed the young lady who sought help late in the night and was knocking on his door is now up on charges for his crime. It's only a license to kill if it permits it, which the law does not. I imagine the young person in the OP will find himself in the same boat and facing charges and prison time. It's never ok and the SYG law does not provide any protection for a threat that does not exist.

 

I think that people generally don't understand self defense laws at all in that regard. You are allowed to use APPROPRIATE FORCE to defend yourself. If some dude is throwing popcorn at you at the theater for example, you can't kill him and claim self defense.

 

No, what's embarrassing is laws like in the UK where the homeowner has absolutely no rights while the criminals can do what they want. That's the extreme end of what was before Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine. Before, people who defended themselves were assumed guilty until proven innocent (which is exact opposite of how it should be). And in some areas they had/have laws that force you to run. Which means if a criminal breaks into your home, that criminal now has more rights than the homeowner; because if the homeowner defends their home, they go to jail. That kind of thinking, the kind of thinking the anti-gun side want to see happen again because they are pro-criminal, is embarrassing. What is it about people defending their lives that upsets you so? Do you feel it is morally superior to just accept your fate and die?

 

George wasn't walking in his neighborhood. He said he spotted Trayvon while driving by on his way to Target to buy groceries.

Furthermore listen to the NEN call. George sat in his truck and observed Trayvon for a while before he left it to run after him.

Trayvon ran AWAY from George, not toward him.

George had to create all sorts of stories to explain why Trayvon's body was so far from where he said he parked.

Why contact the police if you don't plan to allow them to do their jobs?

 

To create an alibi, duh!

 

I know.

That was just another example of George playing cop wanna be that night.

It makes me mad and angry simultaneously to think that Trayvon was just at the wrong place at the wrong time that night.

 

I've NO doubt that Trayvon played his own part in the events. George is obviously a disturbed person, someone assaulted him that night.

Was it self defense? Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) knows for sure, and that's sort of the point, if you don't know for sure you MUST find not guilty under our legal system.

Of course you guys aren't his jury, so find however you like. Just don't say the jury got it wrong. They didn't because NO ONE can say that without doubt there was no reasonable doubt.