YAGT: Stand your ground law...

[irishScott]

I think drawing conclusions about crime rates among law abiding citizens is kind of pointless.

Most people obey the law... even non-CCW holders.

Cudda's point was that stand your ground laws could empower CCW holders to a dangerous level. My point was said danger has yet to even remotely materialize. If it does, then we can talk about scaling back the laws. As it stands cases like Zimmerman are extremely rare and not appreciably growing in number.

Likewise Cudda says in his OP that this isn't about the Zimmerman case, but let's be honest. If Zimmerman, that less than .025% chance, hadn't happened, this thread probably wouldn't exist.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for more stringent CCW training requirements and I think "Constitutional Carry" as it's called (being able to carry concealed without a license in a given state) is a disaster waiting to happen, at least in states like Arizona. But then again Vermont has had such a system since the 60s IIRC with no ill effects, so who am I to judge?

Bottom line, until there's some concrete evidence of significant negative effect all this thread amounts to is theory and speculation.

 

[alkemyst]

I don't think licensing and formalized courses solve any problem. Anyone that wants to illegally own a gun can.

Most legal gun owners aren't going around shooting everyone.

This is the belief non-gun people have. They feel if someone has a gun they are going to use it the moment someone slights them in anyway. Then they worry about all the collateral damage, etc with missed shots.

It's sad and scared person syndrome.

 

[xj0hnx]

Don't get me wrong I'm all for more stringent CCW training requirements and I think "Constitutional Carry" as it's called (being able to carry concealed without a license in a given state) is a disaster waiting to happen, at least in states like Arizona.

Why would it be a "disaster waiting to happen"? People that want to carry for the most part already do, either CCW or illegally. I've only seen a few states CCW test, and none of them make you pass more than a basic proficiency test, and familiarize your self with the local laws.

 

[xj0hnx]

I don't think licensing and formalized courses solve any problem. Anyone that wants to illegally own a gun can.

Most legal gun owners aren't going around shooting everyone.

This is the belief non-gun people have. They feel if someone has a gun they are going to use it the moment someone slights them in anyway. Then they worry about all the collateral damage, etc with missed shots.

It's sad and scared person syndrome.

This and the fact that they seem to think that if they make more laws, it will somehow stop people who be definition do not follow the law.

 

[irishScott]

Why would it be a "disaster waiting to happen"? People that want to carry for the most part already do, either CCW or illegally. I've only seen a few states CCW test, and none of them make you pass more than a basic proficiency test, and familiarize your self with the local laws.

Because people usually don't know the laws, and aren't smart enough to infer when they're in the wrong. A prime example is the controversy a few years ago about that Texas guy who shot fleeing robbers in the back as they were robbing his neighbor's house. Granted he scraped out with a slap on the wrist, but there are plenty in similar situations who don't.

Likewise there are some gun owners who are simply stupid and don't know how to properly operate their firearm. Walk into any gun store and ask them to tell you their worst experience with a customer. The one near me once had a guy bring in a Hi-Point to trade in. Guess what? The numbskull forgot to clear the chamber, and just tossed it on the counter with the muzzle pointing square at the clerk he was dealing with. Granted Hi-Points have a firing pin block so there was no real danger, but that's 3 serious violations of firearm safety in as many seconds.

A considerable portion of the gun lobby sees required training as a barrier trying to deny them their rights. In most states that's simply not the case. It's around precisely to prevent situations like the above and make sure the person has at least a basic knowledge of what they're doing. Granted there's no fullproof way to stop people from being stupid, but you can at least give them the tools.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Where's you hear this? The ninja in your third grade gym class?

No, the friend that had a sharpened Japanese strait sword that he had to keep in the house because it was not legal in NJ.

The law seems to be hit or miss, with most states only permitting ownership, but not open transportation. So you can have it at home, but you are not allowed to be walking around town with it, especially unsheathed.

 

[alkemyst]

Because people usually don't know the laws, and aren't smart enough to infer when they're in the wrong. A prime example is the controversy a few years ago about that Texas guy who shot fleeing robbers in the back as they were robbing his neighbor's house. Granted he scraped out with a slap on the wrist, but there are plenty in similar situations who don't.

Likewise there are some gun owners who are simply stupid and don't know how to properly operate their firearm. Walk into any gun store and ask them to tell you their worst experience with a customer. The one near me once had a guy bring in a Hi-Point to trade in. Guess what? The numbskull forgot to clear the chamber, and just tossed it on the counter with the muzzle pointing square at the clerk he was dealing with. Granted Hi-Points have a firing pin block so there was no real danger, but that's 3 serious violations of firearm safety in as many seconds.

A considerable portion of the gun lobby sees required training as a barrier trying to deny them their rights. In most states that's simply not the case. It's around precisely to prevent situations like the above and make sure the person has at least a basic knowledge of what they're doing. Granted there's no fullproof way to stop people from being stupid, but you can at least give them the tools.

This is why the first rule is treating any gun as loaded and chambered.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Putting fire in the hands of idiots is asking for someone to get burned.

 

[xBiffx]

Putting fire in the hands of idiots is asking for someone to get burned.

No one is putting anything anywhere. You are given the freedom to choose. If you are inclined, don't play with fire, if I am inclined, I will play with fire. But you want to take away my right to make that choice and that simply will not stand. After all, you can outlaw fire and that doesn't stop me from playing with it.

 

[Agent11]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNf8v4m5Vdg

IMO cases like this are why the law is a good thing.

In instances where individuals aren't standing their ground but rather instigating conflict I would hope they would be charged and the courts would hold them accountable.