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.
I'm going to chime in, here, Paul. My views on most things political are pretty liberal, but I am a gun owner, and support the 2nd Amendment, and an American's right to bear arms, so long as it is done safely, ethically, and legally. That said, I agree with your first two paragraphs in their entirety, as written. I also think your views on personal responsibility are spot on. I support legal, licensed concealed carry, and have my license, and do on occasion, carry concealed. I can also agree with the idea that "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.", at least in most situations. I had my PA Act 235 (armed security guard license) at one point, and the only time in three years I had to so much as draw my weapon, much less use it, I was confronted by, not a person, but a coyote. Usually, the presence of an armed guard was enough deterrent in and of itself. In fact, the only point you make that I disagree on is this: " I think that guns can be a good deterrent by being brandished and not fired." I was taught my grandfathers, father, and uncles (former sergeants in the varied branches of the military, and one a County Sheriff) and my 235 instructors always told me that my weapon was NEVER to clear the holster until and unless I had every intention of using it, because "once that gun is out, you don't have but two options left, and they're both the wrong one if simply drawing your weapon doesn't diffuse the situation." Because at that point, the only options are back down, put the gun away, and make it clear to all involved that you're weak or indecisive, and the gun is just for show and not a real threat, or to shoot and deal with the aftermath. On the subject of Stand Your Ground laws, I only support them as an owner's/proprietor's right on private property. If somebody illegally enters your home, or enters your business with intent of robbing it or doing you harm, then you (should) have every right to take whatever action you feel necessary to protect yourself, your home, your family, and/or your business (and there are many municipalities, cities, and states where this is not the case, or is only the case in limited circumstances). However, like you, I believe the people who use lethal force on a "perceived threat" on public streets or in public places, then hide behind "Stand Your Ground" laws as justification for their actions are irresponsible, and give us responsible firearm owners a bad name.
ReplyDelete