Owning a gun is not just a right; there are responsibilities that go along with it

[gollygee]

This is why so many people want Zimmerman convicted at the very least of manslaughter, even if murder seems more like what happened. If he is going to so blatantly misuse his right to own and carry a gun, he should be held responsible for misusing it. He killed someone - an innocent kid. And if the law allows him to have no responsibility for what he does with his gun, then the law needs to change.

If he is found not guilty of anything at all, then it's legal to hunt down, provoke, and kill black teenagers. I can't stand even the thought of that.



* subject line re-worded because it was horribly ambiguous.

[onehandle]

1. No matter what, he will strengthen the gun control movement.

He's just another symbol and hero of Gun Ultra-Rightists.

[Nevernose]

2. I think the only reasonable doubt MIGHT be with murder

But George Zimmerman is the poster child for manslaughter. He's what they were thinking of when the concept was invented.

I've already ranted all over DU about what a terrible human being Zimmerman was long before he shot a kid. What people who want to turn this into a "gun rights" issue are missing is that, at the very, very least, George Zimmerman was highly irresponsible, and that total lack of responsibility directly led to a child's death.

[Thinkingabout]

3. I agree owning a gun has responsibilities and Zimmerman did not have correct training or just did

not care. He only knew he had a gun and he had it with him and he wanted to use it on someone.

[The Straight Story]

4. and the 1% of gun owners that do misuse guns should face the penalties of doing so

That's why we have so many laws on the books.

[BainsBane]

6. The OP Is about Zimmerman

Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 04:07 AM - Edit history (1)

and the responsibilities that come with owning a lethal weapon. But as usual you have to push your political agenda. The OP didn't say you should be blamed. S/he said gun owners need to act responsibly. One has to wonder why you find that so objectionable? Most gun owners don't eschew responsibility. Nor do they oppose gun control and don't make gun proliferation their cause. But then there are gun nuts who think having a gun gives them a license to kill, which is why so many are rooting for Zimmerman. Zimmerman did exactly what they would like to do, and if he is acquitted some will follow through. And then there is you, who responds to an OP about responsibility by saying the 99% of gun owners shouldn't be blamed. If handling a weapon responsibility is punishment for you, you have no business going anywhere near guns.

[galileoreloaded]

8. There is a scene in the West Wing where the lawyer tells Cj

to learn how to answer the question asked.

"And then there is you, who responds to an OP about responsibility by saying the 99% of gun owners shouldn't be blamed."

This is a good lesson for you too. Your attempts to reframe don't just go unnoticed, they are merely ignored by thinking people.

You have to get a grip and start dealing with language and intent honestly lest you be branded a wild eyed extremist on this site.

[CokeMachine]

9. + 1000 nt

[BainsBane]

32. an extremist

by you?

If the right wingers on this site don't like me, I have no problem with that. I support the Democratic Party position on guns. That isn't extremist. Polling data shows the overwhelming majority of Americans are with me, while only about 9% of Americans agree with you and the gunners.

As for you, I can't imagine anyone on this planet whose opinion means less to me.
You don't even seem to be able to follow the point of the OP. TSS ignored the point of the OP to grind his own personal axe. I told him what the OP had said. No one asked me a question. You don't seem to be able to follow the point of this or any other thread, from what I can tell. You're often out of your depth. The funniest was the one on capitalism and slavery. You had no clue what people were saying. You responded in the most bizarre ways by saying you agreed and then making a point entirely unrelated to what that person had said. That was just sad.

Why you insist on responding to so many of my posts boggles my mind. You know I don't like you. The only time anything you say has the slightest bit of interest to me is if I need to alert on it, and I don't need your personal responses for that. I am requesting that you leave me alone. You would be far better off communicating with someone who actually cares what you have to say.

[galileoreloaded]

40. What can I say, you say some pretty outrageous things

and your Holier than thou and nonsensical replies to direct questions goes completely unchallenged by normal people who are just here to talk about how politics affect their daily lives. You start in on the crazy misdirected stuff, and I worry that people either take you seriously or consider you some type of resource. So when the silly attacks on logic start, I don't let them go unchallenged. Call me a giver.

I don't know. Maybe I'm being troll baited like that graham4anything guy troll baited me. It's clear you can't play a straight game but for damn sure when you start calling ME a right winger I really gotta scratch my head.

[The Straight Story]

29. I don't think you are even trying anymore (or you are just trolling at this point)

I don't find it objectionable. Most do act in a responsible way. But those are not the people you ever post about. Wonder why...

You, and some others, want to paint a picture that people who own guns are just a bunch of crazy people who are irresponsible, even when you see that most are not.

Some keep wanting to make it all about the tools and not the people. You don't want solutions to the problems, you want a placebo that makes you feel all better.

If he had been killed in any other way I doubt you would care one bit. It is not about being killed, but about the method used you seem to care about the most so long as it pushes your agenda.

Said it before, will again - let's spend some time looking at the core causes and not the tools - that is, if you really want solutions that will help to prevent such things.

[BainsBane]

33. Sorry, I'm not here to post NRA talking points

Others have that covered.

If you care about responsibility, I would think you wouldn't respond to a post on that subject by saying "don't blame the 99% of gun owners." That suggests you see a call for responsibility as "blame." Or perhaps you don't bother reading and just post the same thing on every single thread where you see guns. Either way, it's strange.

You have said 1000 times that gun deaths aren't significant because the majority of gun owners don't commit them. We need to wait until there are hundreds of millions of people being killed each year for you to find it statistically relevant. I don't feel that way.
I care about 32,000 deaths. I don't need to wait until there are 100 million to decide they matter. In fact, I would really prefer we never got to that level.

[The Straight Story]

34. So you are saying I am? Care to back that up?

Of course not. Because each time I post facts you just ignore them.

*If* I care about responsibility? I do. And think those that are not should be punished.

You want to punish all, even when they are responsible.

And I did not say 'gun deaths' aren't significant, I have said that guns are not the significant factor - you are the one saying only deaths by guns are worth the time to discuss because you blame them and not people.

And you you say you don't need to wait until there are 100 million - why do you think there would be that many unless you feel that guns themselves are to blame. Pick up a history book. Deaths have come in all forms since the dawn of man (cain/abel/etc).

Keep blaming a thing instead of the root problems. Maybe it is because you personally feel powerless over those problems and this a way to try to feel in control of the issue. I can respect that actually as I think we all have been there on different issues (I know I have). But more laws against guns won't stop or solve the issue at all.

Let's work on the real issues, together, to stop the violence against each other - from rape, to robbery, to murder, etc. It's not the tools folks use, it is the reasons they do it we must investigate and work to fix.

[BainsBane]

35. Your facts

You posted the survey Mother Jones used, pretended it said something different from what it did, when it fact it concluded exactly what Mother Jones said.

What is it about gunners that makes them think everyone should make their arguments for them? I'm not gong to make your argument for you. If you can't be bothered to do it yourself, that's your problem. I understand posting all your anti-women threads take up a lot of time. You'll just need to divide your time according to what you care most about.

And yes. the NRA says exactly the same thing you do. Gunners in general repeat NRA talking points all the time. The arguments here are identical, virtually verbatim, to those made on right-wing sites.

Pick up a history book? I have a PhD in history. I've read thousands of history books. More people in the US have died from gun violence since 1968 than in all wars in US history combined, including the Civil War. The fact that other methods exist that make it possible to kill is not the point. The vast majority of homicides and suicides are committed with guns. Those are facts. People can sit around thinking about how mad they are at someone, but a gun makes it far more likely they will act on it. Guns are also discharged by those with no homicidal intent, like toddlers and dogs. In those cases, there is no malice involved in the killing, but the victim is no less dead.

Look at international homicide stats. The US has the highest homicide rate in the industrialized West. This past week a conference at Stanford on gun violence was broadcasted on CSPAN. There leading researchers concluded that isolating for variables the only factor that explained the high homicide rate in the US compared to other wealthy nations was the large numbers of guns in this country.

You make a point of denying reality. You ignore statistics and distort others. The basic fact is that you and others value guns over the lives of those killed by guns. It's really as simple as that. If you didn't, you would support measures to curb lethality and keep guns out of the hands of criminals rather than falling in lock step with the gun lobby. It's all about the percentage of guns to you. I care about the human lives.
Guns kill. That is what they are designed for and they do it very efficiently. To pretend otherwise shows no connection to reality.

Working together would require agreeing on something. You can let me know if that ever arises. The only thing I've ever seen you write that wasn't objectionable is that you don't share the hatred toward people of faith that many here do. That, however, is not an issue that I work on. I'll leave that to people of faith. In general, you oppose everything I value most in life.

[The Straight Story]

39. "The basic fact is that you and others value guns over the lives of those killed by guns." uh...No

It is not anymore about guns than smoking in bars is about smoking (I do smoke, I do not own a gun).

It is about core principles. Freedoms. Choices. Not judging the many by the few.

I value life which is why I am anti-war (unless a war is needed in self defense). I see cars/alcohol/and a few other things as contributing to more health issues than most other things. But I don't think we need to give up such things and live like the Amish. There is a balance to be had. You only live once after all (well, maybe not....)

In a great society we would focus ourselves on science, taking care of each other, finding a way to better the world, and ensuring each person had what they needed as far as medicine/food/etc - and I can bet the crime rate would plummet even if every citizen was carrying around fully automatic guns all day long.

Our society is 'sports' based. There is no real team, just each person against the next. We celebrate what one achieves at the cost of all others. We don't adopt a Nash like principle of "do what is best for yourself AND others", we leave out the last part.

People are objects to be used. Disposable in wars, in the race for wealth and personal gain. We have lost our humanity. I don't blame guns. I blame us as a society for throwing away people, locking them away as though it was nothing over owning a plant, etc and so on.

The war we should be fighting is against greed, selfishness, hunger, poverty, and lack of compassion.

[BainsBane]

36. Here is that back up

to your talking points about suicide in Japan, from an NRA "fact sheet"

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2001/gun-laws,-culture,-justice-crime-in-f.aspx?s=&st=&ps=

[The Straight Story]

38. How is that related to suicide?? Here is what that link says:

Mostly without firearms, Japan`s suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom, "In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1, 7/15/99.)

Keep on blaming guns...

[Just Saying]

5. K & R

[markiv]

7. skydiving is legal, but safety is not guaranteed

i think that's the real lesson here

sure, it's legal to pack heat and confront people, but the trouble you get into is your own

why do people think corporations pay for uniformed security, with training, under separate corporations with bonding - because corporations like spending money? no, it's to manage risk

what's ;ost in this conversation, is that it's not binary, legal or not, it's also the issue of how risky it is

i dont know or care what happened, at minimum, zimmerman was stupid and walked into trouble when he didnt have to

[targetpractice]

10. When did using hollow point bullets become a responsible choice?

I remember hollow-point bullets being called "cop-killer" bullets.

According to Zimmerman's defense, using hollow-point bullets was an indication that Zimmerman was a responsible gun owner.

[beevul]

12. When people figured out that they were less likely...

When people figured out that they were less likely to overpenetrate to the point of continuing through and hitting something else on top of the first thing they hit.

In 1982, NBC ran a television special on the bullets, supposedly against the requests of many police organizations, wherein it was argued that the bullets were a threat to police. Various gun control organizations in the U.S. labeled Teflon-coated bullets with the epithet "cop killers" because of the supposedly increased penetration the bullets offered against ballistic vests, a staple of the American police uniform. Many erroneously focused on the Teflon coating as the source of the bullets' supposedly increased penetration, rather than the hardness of the metals used. A common resulting misconception, often perpetuated in film and television, is that coating otherwise normal bullets with Teflon will give them armor-piercing capabilities. In reality, as noted above, Teflon and similar coatings were used primarily as a means to protect the gun barrel from the hardened brass bullet, and, secondarily, to reduce ricochet against hard, angled surfaces. The coating itself did not add any armor-piercing abilities to bullets under normal circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet

Hollow point ammunition is in no way some special "cop killer" bullet.

[targetpractice]

13. Overpenetrate?

That's a euphemism for explode in a human target.

Nice to see you folks are on the same page.

[targetpractice]

15. Why do you want them to expand? To kill the target? n/t

[NickB79]

18. To stop the "target" from being a threat, as rapidly as possible

When you've exhausted all ways to escape and reached the point where only lethal force is left as a way to defend yourself, you want to stop whoever is threatening your life as fast as possible to minimize any further risk to yourself.

[targetpractice]

19. And shooting regular ole bullet won't do? Why?

Who says the first gunshot is supposed to lethal in a self-defense situation? Shouldn't it be a deterrent like pepper spray?

You understand the situation under discussion… Zimmerman shot a kid minding his own business. Maybe a regular bullet would have defended Zimmerman, made his point without ensuring the victim's death.

[NickB79]

25. Because you want the threat stopped as fast as possible

If someone is about to attack you, you want them to stop. Immediately. A regular bullet could certainly do that if it hits the right area (heart, spine, head), but a hollowpoint makes it more likely that a less-than-ideal shot will still get them to stop.

Who says the first gunshot is supposed to lethal in a self-defense situation?

Like I said, you shoot to stop the threat as quickly as possible. That means shooting center-mass to ensure that as many bullets as possible hit the target, and where they'll do the quickest amount of damage. Bullshit Hollywood moves like "shoot to wound" or "warning shots" are a quick way to either end up dead or in prison yourself. If you are going to resort to using a firearm, you've already made the decision to potentially kill someone. No point dicking around trying a trick shot that could then be used against you in court to say you weren't truly in fear for your life. This woman in Florida found out that doing so can get you 20 years in prison: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing

And yes, you should exhaust all non-lethal means first. If you have pepper spray, use it. If you can run, by God run like hell. If you can lock yourself in a room, do so. That's exactly what I did when I was 17 and was forced to point a loaded rifle at my enraged father after he almost murdered my mother. Thankfully, the sight of the gun DID act as a deterrent, but it was really, really close.

Maybe a regular bullet would have defended Zimmerman, made his point without ensuring the victim's death.

Per the news reports, the bullet fired by Zimmerman pierced Martin's heart. A regular bullet would have killed him just as dead as a hollowpoint (was Zimmerman firing hollowpoints? Not sure I ever read that).

[Travis_0004]

37. I want the first bullet to be as effective as possible

Its not about trying to kill somebody, its about trying to protect yourself.

If I am in a situation where I need to use my gun, I am way past the stage where I want a bullet to be a deterrent. Plus, if you shoot a gun in self defense, you are responsible for where that bullet ends up. It if does not overpenetrate, its a lot safer to other people who may be in the area.

[sarisataka]

20. The goal of use of force,

lethal or non-lethal, is to stop a person from doing something. The sooner they are stopped, the better.

Full metal jacket rounds have a tendency to cause small, non-incapacitating wounds requiring many hits to stop a person. Further they often will pass completely through a person and can cause damage to others in the path of the bullet.

Hollow points will expand, rapidly expending their kinetic energy. The result is a larger wound which is much more likely to incapacitate a person with a few, or even one hit. Also the hollow point usually will expend enough energy in the initial hit that it is not able to cause injury to any other person.

These are reasons why police use hollow point ammunition.

[targetpractice]

21. To ensure a kill, in other words.

Kill then ask questions later… It's all about YOU, your fear, your decisions… no time for actually considering why another human being is in the equation.

[sarisataka]

22. Where did I ever indicate killing is the goal?

The goal is to stop a person. If a punch or kick works, great. maybe pepper spray will do the trick. A sturdy pen can be used to deliver painful jabs. A bullet into the core of the human body can cause enough shock to immediately render a person incapable of physical action.

All of these actions have the potential to be fatal. A punch to the throat, allergic reaction to pepper spray, a pen penetrating a kidney or other vital organ, a bullet striking an artery or vital organ. Some are obviously more likely than others.

It is all about THEM. The attacker's decision, their actions. Yes, at that point there is no time to consider why a person has chosen to victimize another human being. The choices are few, fight, flight, freeze, submit or posture. All are reactive. Two put you at the mercy of the attacker, one is a bluff, one is a passive defense, one is an active defense; none are guarantied to be successful.

[Lizzie Poppet]

24. Just the opposite, actually.

Overpenetration means they didn't expand/explode, and still had enough energy to exit (very possibly remaining deadly to whatever they hit next).

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. They always have been the responsible choice.

Fully jacketed rounds tend to keep going through what they hit unless it's pretty tough, often retaining enough energy to still be deadly. Hollow points tend not to do that.

[flvegan]

16. So if he's found not guilty of "anything at all" that will be case law for hunting down and killing

black teenagers?

If he misused it, you are right. But it seems you left "if" on the side of the road some time ago.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

28. Precedent is a useful and dangerous thing.

This case can/will be used in similar cases to either help convict or clear others.

[anomiep]

30. The only way this sets precedent

Is if it gets appealed for some reason.

Precedent is set by a higher court over itself and lower courts.

The prosecution can't appeal a not guilty (as far as i know) and the defense won't.

So the legal standard would remain the same.

The only way I see for this case to become precedent is for a guilty to come back and the defense to win a precedent setting appeal.

I am not a lawyer, etc.

[anomiep]

17. There is no right whatsoever that does not carry responsibilities that go along with it

Title says it all

[Lady Freedom Returns]

27. +1

And welcome to DU!

[anomiep]

31. Thanks!

[Lady Freedom Returns]

26. All of our Rights have responsibilities, GREAT responsibilities.

Sadly, many cannot see or understand that. And due to not seeing or understanding it, many get hurt or, as in this case, killed.