18 February 2014

Loose Footing

It’s been a while since I wrote a blog, but this subject has been on my mind a lot lately.

Let me begin by stating that I am, for the record, I proponent of the second amendment.  I believe in self-defense.  I believe in the right to bear arms, I also believe in a well-regulated militia.  I usually oppose any assault weapon ban because I don’t think they are effective.  I believe in personal responsibility and I believe in consequences.  I am, above all, a proponent of freedom.  That being said, I will never understand the bloodlust in our party.  Standing by stand your ground abusers doesn't make sense in any sort of small government, personal responsibility, consequences for your actions mentality, which are the cores of conservative values. 
The stand your ground law gets a lot of attention lately, being that people are killing unarmed people because they feel threatened.  As a fan of Sherlock Holmes, I don’t tend to base my opinions on hearsay or the news.  I was not a witness to any of the events, and neither were anyone on the news or the politicians.  I did not review any evidence, and I don’t have the proper training to do so even if given the opportunity.  So my opinion about the facts of the case are as meaningless as those on any other political garbage show/blog/etc. that tries to orchestrate mass opinion.  They were not there and they offer speculation rather than fact, and that’s important to remember.   However, the inherent problems with Stand Your Ground, are based on the fact that people are getting killed that didn’t need to die.  
I tend to be put off by the people on my side of the political spectrum, mostly, because they refuse to admit that there is a troubling sense of ambiguity in the law.  It’s problematic.  If you don’t believe that it is, consider the author of this article was packing heat, could she in theory shoot every man she came across?  An extreme example, I’m aware, but it’s bothersome to think that your life can be ended because you are a bit on the scary side.  What’s worse is that they are quick to defend the person who uses the defense, however, it seems to go against our core values of personal responsibility and consequences.  In the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, I understood there was blatant media manipulation, and that in it of itself is disturbing, however, in my armchair detective/jury/judge sort of way, I believed that Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter, and that was what they should have prosecuted for in the beginning.  What bothered me on the way the right media handled it, is that everyone was cool with a security guard using lethal force on an unarmed young man, a security guard that did not carry mace or a Taser, which, along with a pistol, my sister in law constable also carries, because sometimes there are better ways to deal with a threat.  The question becomes, should George Zimmerman, or any of the subsequent abusers of the stand your ground defense used nonlethal force to subdue the alleged perpetrators?
I wish that the NRA, police, or what have you would promote and educate people about nonlethal weapons such as pepper spray or Tasers.  If the old guy with the loud music was threatened, or this fool cop (who should know better) in the movie theater felt “threatened” but could not verify that someone is armed, would it not make more sense that he would have used mace or a Taser?  Yes, I am aware that these things can be lethal, but your odds are significantly better than one in the chest from arms-reach.  The problem with guns is that it escalates too much.  It makes a situation of fight or flight become life and death, and I’m not thoroughly convinced that it needs to be so.
I don’t really have a problem with conceal/carry.  I think that guns can be a good deterrent by being brandished and not fired.  That being said, so can the non-lethal forms of subduing a threat.  And they are significantly less expensive.  So what I propose is this, in conceal/carry, stand your ground states, if you are going to pack heat, you should pack either mace or a Taser. I think the NRA could get behind that, because it protects gun owners from liberal agendas, and it gives someone a chance to fight another day.

Chime in on the comments below.  If you agree, tell me why, if you don’t tell me why not.