|Fla legislators love the NRA|
Two good questions arise in a Wall Street Journal article that seem to challenge the “stand your ground laws in those states where it has been passed. “For instance, does a rise in justifiable homicides reflect killings that otherwise wouldn't have happened? Or does it reflect the fact that more killings might naturally fall into the "justifiable" category, if a new law broadens that category?” Tough questions and without more study will no doubt remain unanswered.
Up until the killing of Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, the primary battle between gun control advocates and those for more gun rights has been to just let anyone who wants to own a weapon of their choice take it anywhere they wanted to. So far, the gun worshippers have gotten their way. Now it would seem that the NRA-backed gun bubbas would like to add an amendment: “If I kill someone, let me call it self defense.”
The alleged justifiable homicides almost doubled between 2000 and 2010, but distinguishing these events are some interesting factors. Around 60 percent were strangers. Firearms were used in 80 percent of the cases compared to 65 percent in non-justifiable cases. The average age of victims in justifiable versus non-justifiable are about the same.
Re. the race issue, in 75 percent of each type the victim and the killer were the same race. On the other side, in these quasi justifiable cases, when the races are different, the victim is more often black.
So far there is only one common denominator in all the chaos of these laws and statistics and that is the fact that there is a proliferation of guns in the hands of literally anyone who wants them and these gun nuts are able to walk around with their firearms just about anywhere. And that is not right. George Zimmerman’s judgment was proven inadequate to own a handgun when he defied law enforcement by following Trayvon Martin, resulting in the black teen’s death.
|Where the 2nd Amend. was designed for|
In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment was meant by its drafters to protect individuals in their homes. Conversely, as a militia then, or for today’s law enforcement and military, the purpose was to arm them for anywhere they were needed to protect the citizenry. Protection of the homestead was the definition of the “Castle Doctrine” for several years until the gun-crazy gang decided they wanted to play Wyatt Earp. Retreat was the law before this “stand your ground” crap.
Fla. legislator on his "stand your ground" law
According to the WSJ, one of the reasons reports of the U.S. homicide rate is in decline is the fact that it is voluntary for states to report the data, and police agencies across the country aren’t consistent in their reporting. I did a post earlier this week, “48 dead from 49 shootings across
in March alone,” where the title speaks for itself. Actually, there was a slight increase in homicides from 2000-2010, but slight decline when adjusted for population. U. S.
|GOP delivers for the NRA|
Now when you look at justified killings over the same period, justifiable rose by 85 percent. And most of these occurred after 2005 when
and 16 other states passed their first “stand your ground law.” Coincidence? The NRA would argue yes. Sane individuals would see the figures as representing a law that all of a sudden provided these gun addicts a legal excuse to blast away. And they would have probably continued to get away with it if not for George Zimmerman. Florida
I am not suggesting that gun owners use the “stand your ground” law for a reason to either shoot or actually kill someone. These people have been so brain-washed by the National Rifle Assn. that they are convinced they must push for the right to display their weapons before the world, fighting for literally any way to do this, and to stand firm against any move to control the violence caused by all these loose weapons on the street. Pathetic!