Claims you've never actually heard spoken

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. If the situation was reversed and Zimmerman had shot Trayvon simply for following him (since you state that being followed entitles you to self-defense), he would have been wrong and he probably would have been convicted. Following someone isn't initiating conflict.

Assume Trayvon Martin survived the struggle, not Zimmerman. His trial testimony would have been a narrative of a teenage boy walking down the darkened street being followed by an adult. He would say that he feared a kidnapping, robbery, or assault. When he confronted his shadower- because he didn't think he could get away- a struggle started, and the man brandished a gun. In fear for his life, he bashed Zimmerman's head against the ground until he went limp/dropped the gun, etc.

That narrative is at least partially supported by the phone call he was making at the time he noticed Zimmerman following him.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/justice/zimmerman-trial/

Certainly, the other party to the phone call could be said to have bias in Martin's favor, but it is still a solid piece of witness testimony in support of a self-defense claim.

It really wasn't. Zimmerman would have been entitled to self-defense even in the absence of SYG. SYG removes the duty to retreat in certain cases. According to Zimmerman's story, and supported by the physical evidence, he was being assaulted and could not retreat. So SYG wouldn't have really been a factor.

Now only Zimmerman knows exactly what happened, how it went down, and who really initiated the physical confrontation, but the evidence just wasn't there to convict him.

While the evidence would not support a murder charge, it certainly was sufficient to support a claim of involuntary manslaughter

To establish involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutor must show that the defendant acted with "culpable negligence." Florida statutes define culpable negligence as a disregard for human life while engaging in wanton or reckless behavior. The state may be able to prove involuntary manslaughter by showing the defendant's recklessness or lack of care when handling a dangerous instrument or weapon, or while engaging in a range of other activities that could lead to death if performed recklessly.

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-involuntary-manslaughter-laws.html

Zimmerman was told by police dispatchers to break off his trailing of Trayvon Martin because it was dangerous. By that, the dispatcher means not just for Zimmerman or Martin, but also for any bystanders and/or police officers sent to the scene.

He didn't care; he didn't follow orders. Instead of stopping and waiting for the police he knew had been dispatched, he chased a running Martin.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-Zimmerman.html

 

[Scott DeWar]

Accidental firearm deaths are very rare. More people drown each year. I guess you could say it makes it easier to kill someone accidentally, but it's also extremely easy to avoid such accidents.

Yeah, that di-hydorgen - oxide is a deadly substance, indeed.

 

[Janx]

s seem to deter violent crime. However, they *enhance* homicide." If so, I am not sure it is necessarily a win for us.

This part is basically true by logic. Saw an article on the topic. Before semi-auto handguns became popular (ala Glock), everyone had Revolvers. 6 shots was all you got. So you didn't blow your whole wad.

The result was less bullets in bodies at the hospital and lower fatality rates.

The semi-auto holds more ammo, shoots them faster, and reloads faster. My 9mm holds 17 rounds with the stock magazine. That's almost 3 times as much ammo as the revolver.

 

[Janx]

Yeah, that di-hydorgen - oxide is a deadly substance, indeed.

Another state from Freakonomics:
more kids die in pools than by guns.

yet the moms against guns crowd aren't chasing down swimming pool regulations...

There are no doubt some reasonable laws to enact while still letting people have guns. Forcing folks to get a CHL if they want to by a gun might help (classroom time explaining the self defense laws, proof of ability to handle fun, extensive background check by FBI). Barring loop holes (like me selling you my gun), it would ensure just about everybody with a gun is a safer person.

TX already has laws requiring guns to be locked up if there's kids in the house. So getting folks to follow the existing laws is better than making new ones

 

[Janx]

SYG laws tend to be drafted pretty sloppily, and applied even more sloppily by juries.

I was stunned by the Trayvon Martin case. I was taught in my Texas CrimLaw (ohhhh so many years ago) that those who initiate a conflict- even verbally- cannot subsequently claim self-defense if the conflict escalates to violence. And on an open, public street, a teenager being followed by a creepy adult male is just as entitled to self-defense as an adult male following a suspicious-looking teenager.

SYG shouldn't have even been a factor in that case.

Yup. In TX, per the CHL class I took, that was the case. If you are breaking the law presently, you have no right to self defense. If you initiate or escalate the conflict, you have no right to self defense.

This is a legal risk for Open Carry, because by me having a pistol on my hip and arguing with Danny about a traffic accident, I am potentially escalating the conflict to "now there could be shooting" Danny would be more worried and intimidated. You could say he'd be in "fear of life" which means if I get ragier, Danny may have right to defend himself.

In the CHL class (before Open Carry was a a topic), we were specifically reminded that we had to be in greater control of our emotions, because having a gun on you while being angry could lead to making a very bad choice.

The basic rule of thumb I got from CHL training and martial arts was "never advance toward trouble"

On the Zimmerman vs Martin case, Zimmerman advanced toward trouble. Regardless of the outcome, his legal risk increased dramatically from when he was in the car, and then he got out to advance toward trouble. Whether the details of the case ended up in his favor or not, his CHL instructor would have shook his head when he got out of the car.

 

[Janx]

I don't envy you guys having to have this conversation endlessly.

yeah. Guns.

Nobody's frothing mad at anybody.

And I do see good points and information being cited.

If I'm going to like guns, I'd like to make sure I am as wary of what can be wrong with guns. Not just to counter negative arguments in a debate, but to be really informed on the risks.

For instance, guns in a house where there's somebody depressed (severely)/suicidal increases the risk of them completing a suicide. Guns are just too efficient for that, leaving not enough time for the person to sort of think their way out of it. I have a friend with depression, and though he likes guns (at the range), he's told me about the issue for him and how bad the funk gets when his meds aren't working as well. So he will never be left in a house with ready access to guns.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, we can look at that as a low-ball number, although I think the 100,000 is still probably lower than the actual number.

You are allowed youe own opinion, of course. But policy should be based on as few opinions as possible.

I never said they were. I didn't assume anything.

You didn't say so explicitly, no. But, there's an assumption in your logic. You said that if the US crime rate was only differentiated from other countries by guns, then our non-gun crime rates should be the same as those in other nations. I'm telling you that isn't necessarily so. The presence of guns may impact the non-gun crime rate.

I'm not sure what your point is since as I already pointed out, our non-gun homicide rate is also higher than their total homicide rate.

Because I do not like unsupported, qualitative assertions in policy discussions. It is not enough to say it is more - we should show *how much*, and what the numbers are. Doing so takes mere minutes, and keeps our discussion more firmly grounded in data than in opinion. This helps keep the egos and emotions out of the matter.

Accidental firearm deaths are very rare. More people drown each year. I guess you could say it makes it easier to kill someone accidentally, but it's also extremely easy to avoid such accidents.

Per my above statement...

The CDC reports that, from 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. There were an additional 347 boating-related drownings each year.

The CDC says there were 591 accidental gun deaths in 2011. 102 of these deaths were under 18, and half of these were under 13 years old. It is not currently known in how many of these accidental deaths it was a child that pulled the trigger.

I agree, it is pretty easy to avoid the accidents. You avoid many of them by keeping your gun locked up. This basic piece of gun safety rather eliminates one of the major stated reasons for allowing so many guns in the populace - home defense. If an invader is going to harm you, he isn't going to wait for you to get your gun out of the safe. If he isn't going to harm you, and is only going to take off with the TV, while you technically have the right to defend your property, I question the risk analysis that has you dragging out a gun to keep the Samsung where it is.

 

[Janx]

I agree, it is pretty easy to avoid the accidents. You avoid many of them by keeping your gun locked up. This basic piece of gun safety rather eliminates one of the major stated reasons for allowing so many guns in the populace - home defense. If an invader is going to harm you, he isn't going to wait for you to get your gun out of the safe. If he isn't going to harm you, and is only going to take off with the TV, while you technically have the right to defend your property, I question the risk analysis that has you dragging out a gun to keep the Samsung where it is.

This last part's a little complicated. You seem to imply that a home invader is after my TV. If I am not home, sure, that's the case. If I am home, it is quite likely for a violent reason. We just had 2 home invasions in the last month near my home. One, the resident got shot, the other, he was tied up. And I think it was last year, a guy dang near wiped out his ex-wife's entire family. That was just miles from my home.

Maybe in NYC you can expect courteous crooks to take the cash and run if you carry some dough to give them. But here in Texas, if a bad guy is in your presence, you have a pretty good chance he means to do you harm because he could have hit a zillion unoccupied places.

That said, I agree with your assessment that a gun in the home is of unlikely use in a home invasion. If it's locked up, obviously not. If it's in a pistol safe for quick access, it assumes you have time from door kick-in to he's shooting at you to get your gun. Only works at night, in your bedroom. If you are not wearing your gun during all waking hours, it will likely be too far away from you when the attack begins. So you're going potty and the invasion starts. You left your gun on the coffee table while you went to the bathroom. There's just too many things I could be doing at home and logically not have my gun on me to make it a certainty that my gun will be ready when a home invasion starts.

I'm not even keen on taking the gun out to investigate a noise if there's people living at home who you can't assert immediately where they are. With zero kids, if I hear a noise, I reach over and confirm my wife is in bed. If she is, I can get up and shoot anybody else I find in my house because I control the population count absolutely. Once I can't assert where she is or where kids or guests are, I'm likely to have a bad shooting accident.

As a practical matter, I don't think home invasion risk is that high. Sure some have happened within miles of my home. And there are some corner cases where you can be expecting trouble. After a hurricane. After one of your family members has been followed home suspiciously (that was just last week for one of my neighbors).

 

[Morrus]

I feel lucky in that I've never experienced, or known anyone to experience, a home invasion. The very concept has always felt fictional to me, it's so far out of my personal realm of experience. You occasionally hear about them in the news, and they sound dreadful.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It is one of the most aptly & clearly named crimes: it is an invasion in every sense of the word. Even if they only rob you, they leave deep emotional scars.