<p>Absolutely right, riprorin. I don’t think having guys like George Zimmerman driving around with loaded guns is a good idea. I think this case graphically demonstrates why that’s true. What I also find interesting is that NRA fanboys have to believe that GZ did nothing wrong. And the reason for that is that to admit that a good guy with a gun is likely to make dumb decisions which ends up with a bad result is contrary to the NRA-fueled dementia among gun nuts.</p>
<p>I have no problem with hunters (know several) or target shooters (although I don’t know any.) But wannabes and mall cops wandering around with guns strike me as a really, really bad idea. This case? Exhibit A.</p>
<p>Those of you who think this case was hyped by the media could not be more wrong. This story was barely reported by the media at all, in the beginning. It gradually gained prominence because TM’s friends and family made it a cause; and when people heard about it, it raised questions in their own minds.</p>
<p>The reason it raised questions was that an armed man, based on type not behavior, profiled a teenager, followed him, ended up shooting him dead; and - and this is really the whole crux of the attention - the police decided on their own not to pursue the case. Prosecutors decide every day which cases to pursue, but to have an armed man kill an unarmed, innocent teenager and have only a cursory investigation was what raised most people’s eyebrows.</p>
<p>It has very little to do with the gun itself, since I believe the story and the media attention would be the same regardless of the weapon. What kept the story going was the existence of the 911 tapes that brought an immediacy to the whole story, and gave us something to debate.</p>
<p>I have said multiple times I’m not invested in the outcome. My only goal was that it be a court, not the local police, to say that says it’s okay or not okay for an unarmed, innocent teenager to be shot under these circumstances.</p>
<p>Granted, most killers use handguns, but long guns still account for 50% more murders than all types of blunt objects combined.</p>
<p>Yes, I know you didn’t make this up, riprorin - it’s a sound bite being spread throughout the right wing blogosphere, but it kind of illustrates another point I’d like to make: don’t believe everything you see on the internet. If there is an original source, and you’re interested, go look at the original source. In years past I’ve urged people to check out IRS statistics, the federal budget historical tables, and here, the actual FBI crime statistics. There’s no excuse for falling for a bit of blatant propaganda like this other than being lazy.</p>
<p>Washington D.C had a handgun ban and a trigger lock law in effect from 1975 - 2007. The result: The murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the US murder rate averaged 11% lower.</p>
<p>And you think that we are going to be safer taking guns away from law abiding citizens because???</p>
<p>Kluge, this case does not illustrate why carrying firearms is not a good idea. Zimmerman is an anomaly, and was extremely reckless. I know many people who carry, and none of them go looking for trouble, in fact most are forced to avoid trouble more so than usual. You’d have to really study it. It comes down to caring enough to actually look for the truth whether it agrees with you or not. But speculating doesn’t help anyone.</p>
<p>Florida State University (FSU) Fightin’ Crackers!</p>
<p>Crackers was one of the names FSU students considered using when choosing a nickname for the college’s athletic teams in 1947. Students ended up selecting Seminoles after a vote. Defense attorney Mark O’Mara graduated from FSU’s law school.</p>
<p>“And you think that we are going to be safer taking guns away from law abiding citizens because???”</p>
<p>I’m for giving guns to every addle-brained citizen who can help us with America’s exploding problem of imperfect teenagers. “Leave the safety off Son. No telling when you’ll see some kid walking around with a bag of candy. Gotta drill those f–k’n punks when you see 'em.”</p>
<p>“And you think that we are going to be safer taking guns away from law abiding citizens because???”</p>
<p>I’m for giving guns to every addle-brained citizen who can help us with America’s exploding problem of imperfect teenagers. “Leave the safety off Son. No telling when you’ll see some kid walking around with a bag of candy. Gotta drill those f–k’n punks when you see 'em.”</p>
<p>I understand that you are emotionally charged by this case, but what do you think about the data from Washington D.C.? Shouldn’t logic trump emotion?</p>
<p>riprorin, why single out rifles when most homicides occur with handguns?</p>
<p>From your link, for 2009: 9,146 firearm deaths (6,452 with handguns)
611 from blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)</p>
<p>With all due respect, I think you are the one who is “emotionally charged” on this subject. Logic and a clear reading of the facts should trump emotion.</p>
<p>Riprorin, there was reason the NRA lobbied Congress to prevent CDC from performing an impartial investigation into the net effect of increasing gun ownership, open carry, etc. in the 1990’s. Objective evidence is not the NRA’s friend - that’s why they successfully suppressed it. There are PR guys masquerading as academics who spin the way the NRA wants - and get paid for it, but no really good data. It’s a complex issue. There’s no question that in some instances a person is better off if they own a gun. There’s also no question that in other cases having a gun exposes the owner to much worse consequences than if they didn’t have one. Now that Newtown accomplished one thing - the removal of the ban on actual study of the question - we can anticipate getting some more reliable data on that issue.</p>
<p>True NRAcolytes won’t care - I get that - they’ll believe what they want to believe. But for reasonable people it will be a welcome change.</p>
<p>As to your guns/hammers claim: if you divide firearms into enough different categories any one category is likely to be smaller than the combination of all types of blunt objects put together - hammers, tire irons, baseball bats, paperweights etc. That’s what makes what you posted an example of “lies, damned lies and statistics” - it’s a statistic which has been generated in such a manner as to create an impression which is the opposite of the actual reality - in this case, that “hammers and clubs” are somehow the murderer’s weapon of choice. Instead of rifles you could have chosen any one specific model of firearm, etc. Bottom line: murderer’s overwhelmingly (two to one) use firearms to kill other people.</p>
<p>
Of course, I’m not ptoposing to “take guns away” from anyone. I’m simply trying to point out that for most “law abiding citizens” - AKA “good guys” bringing a gun into their home increases the likelihood that they or a member of their family, or someone else who doesn’t deserve to die will be killed by a bullet from that gun is higher than the likelihood that that gun will be used to prevent a crime of any sort - let alone a potentially fatal crime.</p>
<p>Simple cost/benefit analysis. Granted, the people who heed that analysis and don’t buy a gun are more likely to be people who would not suffer the adverse consequences than the wannabes who think they’re gonna be a hero. In a sense the decision to buy a handgun “for security” is in my opinion a pretty good litmus test for those least suitable to have one. </p>
<p>If you want one, you’re probably too immature to handle the responsibility. If you take the time and think it through to the point where you conclude owning a gun is more a threat to your family’s safety than a benefit to it - yeah, you could probably safely own one.</p>
<p>I’m 63 and have never owned a gun. When my father passed away I declined to keep his 38. But, I think it is important to have the stats on all aspects of a debate.</p>
<p>I think every criminal case is ultimately about the people involved. The case is what it is. They “other” stuff is what we choose to make out of it.</p>
That’s where I I disagree. I’m sure GZ would have made the same statement you made. Just like 90% of men think they’re “above average” drivers, most people who buy guns think they’re more responsible than others. But that can’t be true. I think there are far more George Zimmermans out there going to Target with a loaded gun than you’d like to acknowledge.</p>
<p>I’ve been in situations where violent crime was taking place. I’ve heard my wife scream as she was attacked in our driveway, and chased her attacker away. I’ve woken up to see a burglar’s hand reaching through my window to open the door. I’ve been maced, tear gassed, and sucker punched. I’ve had two cars stolen, several broken into, my home has been burglarized and ransacked three times (long ago) and my son was robbed at knifepoint just a few years back. I’ve got some real-life familiarity with crime, and how a person reacts.</p>
<p>Having a gun would never have helped me in any way. If I had had a gun, or my son or wife had had a gun when felonies were being committed in our presence, it would not have helped - and very well could have escalated things into a very bad outcome - just like it did for GZ. People who think otherwise are usually just indulging in adolescent hero fantasies.</p>
<p>My husband owns guns. He keeps them at the gun club. I won’t let guns in the house.</p>
<p>He thinks people who carry are putting other people in danger unless they are on duty law enforcement. </p>
<p>He’s a hunter. He hunts with his friends. They have all hunted since they were kids. </p>
<p>He hunts much less than he used to since our daughters were horrified by it, and now he mainly fishes.</p>
<p>He and his friends hate it when guys like Zimmerman go off and play cop. They are far more aware of how responsible you have to be when you have a firearm on your person than when you do not. In fact, as far as most gun owners I know are concerned, carrying a weapon when you don’t intend to use it is far more trouble than it’s worth.</p>
<p>“Talk about a way to ruin your day, always being aware you have to be careful of your weapon.” Is the general thought.</p>
<p>This is why it is so strange to me when people come on here and defend Zimmerman. IME it is the gun owners who think he is the biggest criminal for killing a skinny kid he should have just tossed off of himself to begin with.</p>
<p>kluge–are the stats reported by PEW in post #1473 correct and the trends accurate or is it your understanding that “they” have caused the reporting to be incorrect?</p>
<p>kluge, even cats only have nine lives…you and your family have been victims of well over nine violent crimes. Have you considered moving to a different neighborhood?</p>
<p>07DAD, I’m not familiar with the stats you referenced, but I am aware that violent crime has declined over the past 20 years. The causes are no doubt complex, but I suspect the primary driver is demographics and the dynamics of drug selling organizations in urban areas. You’ll note that the statistics cited:
That tracks the baby boomers’ prime assaultive years, with the oldest boomers reaching their 20’s in the mid-60’s and the youngest reaching their 30’s in the mid 90’s. Those are the ages when people are most likely to kill other people.</p>
<p>Lizard - I’ve just lived a long time - and that’s in three different communities. Most were in the areas close to the urban core, but one stolen car and one armed robbery were in an “upscale” suburban community of million dollar homes. Go figure.</p>