Discuss. General Tavern rules apply. (No mudslinging, be respectful, etc.) I'll open with the statement that people should not have guns. No one at all, except the armed forces, and even then, keep the guns on the bases. Cops should carry riot shields and armor instead of guns. If they need crowd control, use Water Cannons. Supporting evidence: the following skit: What's your reason? Setting: A gun shop, modern day. A Customer walks into the gun shop and asks the Shopkeeper, "Hi, i'd like to buy a gun please." The Shopkeeper pulls out an application form and asks the customer "Alright, what's your reason for wanting to buy a gun?" The Customer says "I need one for personal protection." The Shopkeeper nods. "I have just the thing for you, I guarantee you cannot get any more personal protection than this baby right here. What i'm about to show you offers so much protection, it can stop a shotgun shell." The customer, very interested, stares at a full-size Riot Shield, the kind the police use. He scoffs. "That's not what I want, I want a gun!" The Shopkeeper shrugs. "Are you sure? This fine piece of equipment will protect you more than a gun ever will! It's very strong, reinforced titanium and kevlar..." by now, the angry Customer has left. Later, another Customer enters. "Hi, I need a gun." Again, the Shopkeeper clicks his pen and pulls out an application form. "For what reason?" he asks. The Customer hesitates, than says "Hunting." The shopkeeper smiles. "Of course! I love to hunt. Hunting is a wonderful sport. I guarantee that this item will give you the maximum amount of satisfaction you can ever get from hunting! Here, this is the sport at its peak." And he pulls out a Crossbow, complete with crosshairs for better accuracy. The customer shakes his head. "No, I want a gun." he states. The shopkeeper reluctantly puts away the Crossbow. "Are you sure? With a gun, it's so...boring, just pulling a trigger. And it's unfair to the animal, with this you give the deer a chance and have to chase it for up to an hour, just like the Native Americans did back in the day! Unless of course..." He fails to finish his sentence, as the pissed off customer has left in a huff. Later, a third customer walks in. "Hi, I'd like to buy a gun." he says. The shopkeeper holds his pen at the ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks. The customer glares. "I dont need a reason, read the god **** second amendment "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." It's in the constitution you idiot! The shopkeeper merely smiles. "Of course, I have the perfect thing for you. This gun is covered under Second Amendment laws, guaranteed!" And he holds up a 200-year-old, civil-war-era musket, complete with rusty bayonet. The customer shrieks. "No, man! I want a Glock, a shotgun, something better than that civil war crap!" The shopkeeper merely smiles. "I'm sorry sir, please come back when they update the second amendment to include those types of guns. Here, i'll even give you a discount..." the shopkeeper holds out a discount to the enraged customer, who tears it in half and leaves. Fourthly, another Customer walks in. "I really need a gun, now." He says. The Shopkeeper holds his pen and application form ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks. Instead of stating his reason this time, the Customer snatches the application form and looks at it. There, in the spot titled "Reasons" is a circle for "other". "Other! That's my reason!" the Customer declares triumphantly. The shopkeeper shrugs. "Very good answer sir." he says, while pressing a button under the counter. Two cops arrive at the shop in less than a minute and cuff the Customer. "Hey! What the *PROFANITY* ARE YOU *PROFANITY* GUYS DOING? I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!" He yells, almost breaking the glass of the windows. "Actually, you have." The Shopkeeper begins. "the "other" reason, by exclusion of the other reason, can only include wanting to kill or rob someone. Therefore, you were thinking about commiting a crime when you selected "Other" as your reason. Caught you red-handed, trying to buy the tools necessary to commiting a crime. You confessed to it when you selected "Other"! Take him downtown, please." The cops nod and take the Customer away. The last thing he hears from the Shopkeeper is "Oh, and I knew it was you all those times!"
Moral of the story: You do NOT need a gun for a particular activity. In any given activity (And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun), there are many other options. Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells? Why buy a gun for hunting when the point of hunting (and every other sport) is satisfaction, and since you get more satisfaction with more challenge, and since a crossbow offers more challenge than a gun, you'll get more satisfaction with the crossbow. Why buy a gun based on the Second Amendment when the Colonial-age guns were either giant cannons or black-powder, muzzle-loading Muskets? Did the Founding Fathers have AR-15's, and SPAZ-12 shotguns,And AK 47s, not to mention all the accessories like laser scopes and hollow-point bullets? I dont think so!
The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun. This excludes Skeet-shooting, because the facility can and should/will provide the gun. Until anyone can do that, YOU DONT NEED A GUN, NO ONE NEEDS GUNS! They're WAY too dangerous and make it too easy to kill someone! Why have something you dont need?
No good will come from arguing for more gun control; believe me, I've tried. The real issue is, why is it in the US many people have such an obsession with guns, and feel the need to have them?
The real issue is, why is it in the US many people have such an obsession with guns
Some people like dangerous things (fast cars, explosions, thermite, etc). Some are nostalgic (like if they went hunting with relatives or adult role models).
For others (the "reppers", it's the fact that all of our domestic wars have involved armed civilians fighting for what they care about. In that sense, it's like physically voting. Should the need arise, they don't want to be stuck without a ballot.
No it is not. There is no realistic threat from a bag of popcorn and no reasonable person would respond to that situation by shooting someone. You're the one who tried to claim that in these situations the victim initiated the shooting by assaulting the person who shot them, but a bag of popcorn is not sufficient to be labeled assault (the word reasonable is very important in legal matters). Unless you believe that a bag of popcorn is enough to make a reasonable person genuinely believe that they're about to be violently beaten, there is no assault there.
The objective evidence was far better than any witness:
No it wasn't. The "objective" evidence only shows that Zimmerman got hurt, not how. Pretty much every witness stated that they heard arguing before the fighting and several said that they saw Zimmerman on top of Martin, both of which disprove Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him out of nowhere. It makes a lot more sense (especially when you consider the fact that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a criminal and was trying to stop him from running away) to believe that after arguing Zimmerman tackled Martin to the ground, received those injuries in the struggle, and was knocked off Martin hitting his head on a couple rocks in the yard.
"...shows Zimmerman was diagnosed with a fractured nose, two black eyes and two black eyes and two lacerations on the back of his head." "The autopsy also found that Martin had one small abrasion on his left ring finger below the knuckle. No other injuries were found on Martin's body at the time of his death."
I don't know if you've ever actually hit someone or fallen on any type of paved surface, but neither of these injuries fit the severity of what Zimmerman described. Had Martin really knocked him down, grabbed his head, and started bashing it against the pavement as Zimmerman claimed there'd be far fewer injuries to Zimmerman's face and far more to the back of his head, including the strong possibility of a cracked skull. Hitting someone in the face also tends to do more damage than a single small abrasion on one knuckle on your weak hand when you have a position of good leverage to punch someone full force, like if you're standing next to them or sitting on top of them.
Legally approaching someone is not initiating a conflict and does not justify a use of physical force.
Getting out of your truck, at night, to chase down a person that has already shown reasonable fear by running from an unknown vehicle that's been following them, and then pursuing that person onto another person's property is valid reason for someone to believe you intend to harm them. Plus, there's still the fact that the witnesses state they heard arguing so clearly Martin didn't just attack Zimmerman the second he was close enough. And, he was ignoring the rules of the neighborhood watch and the recommendations of both the police and 911 operators by recklessly pursuing someone he believed to be a criminal. The fact that they didn't convict him of anything is astounding when that alone can make for a very powerful 2nd degree murder case.
*that they used after being punched in the face repeatedly while being slammed against the pavement, and only after (reportedly) an attempt to seize the weapon was made
None of that is backed up the witness statements or the evidence. The fact that you only put "reportedly" before the attempt to seize the gun shows that you either know very little of the case or you're foolish enough to genuinely believe George Zimmerman's story. Unfortunately for you, his story changed every time he told it and he was caught lying more than once about what happened.
I did not say that either was justified, only that the victims were at least somewhat culpable.
Neither victim was culpable at all and to say that they are is an attempt to justify the shootings. As I said before the shooters were men who went into a situation armed, intentionally antagonized the victims, and then used way more force than the situation called for. Reeves decided that texting during previews was worth starting a fight over and then reacted to a, and I cannot say this enough, BAG OF POPCORN by killing another human being. George Zimmerman decided that any black kid in his neighborhood must be a criminal (in 2 years on the neighborhood watch he made over 40 phone calls to the police, most amounted to telling them there was a black teenager in the neighborhood he suspected might be a criminal) then grabbed his gun and chased down someone who had every right to be afraid of the stranger following him.
and was knocked off Martin hitting his head on a couple rocks in the yard.
Then the burden is on you to find those rocks.
(in 2 years on the neighborhood watch he made over 40 phone calls to the police, most amounted to telling them there was a black teenager in the neighborhood he suspected might be a criminal)
2004 to 2012 is more than 2 years, 7 (including the second call regarding Trayvon) is not most. Source
There is no realistic threat from a bag of popcorn
Assuming it's somewhat dark (as the altercation took place during or shortly after the previews), an object was hurled at him. The prosecution would have to demonstrate that he knew what it was at the time and did not perceive a threat from it. If his response relative to the object being thrown was immediate (within roughly a second), the self-defense angle is plausible. If any longer, then there's a strong case that he did it in anger rather than fear. I'll wait until the trial for those details.
Why did you ask for a definition of assault if your aim was to ignore it?
I didn't ignore it, I pointed out that in neither case did the shooter have a reasonable fear of physical violence. The link I posted has the same definitions, it just goes into greater detail of what constitutes a reasonable fear of imminent attack.
Then the burden is on you to find those rocks.
Why? There was no blood on the pavement where Zimmerman claimed his head was being bashed into the ground. Even if I did find them, what would stop you from claiming that Martin was hitting Zimmerman's head against them? My point wasn't about the rocks, it was that several witnesses and his own injuries contradict Zimmerman's story. The same story that you're giving as "roof" that Martin assaulted him.
I'll wait until the trial for those details.
Likewise, there's no point arguing this one until full details are available.
Counter-witness.
Also mentions that Zimmerman's back was wet and covered in grass which disproves his claim that Martin was bashing his head against concrete. That witness did not counter any of the people who stated that they heard arguing before the fight nor provide any indication of how exactly the fight started.
Good said he could only see one person at first. Seconds later, he saw two people laying flat, one on top of the another in the grass.
Some say that Zimmerman was the aggresor while one witness says he saw Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman moments before the shooting.
Some who claim to have heard and seen the start of the fight (the moment you claim Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman thus earning culpability for being shot) vs one person who never makes any mention of the actual start of the fight. I never said that Martin never had the upper hand, just that he did not assault Zimmerman.
It makes a lot more sense (especially when you consider the fact that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a criminal and was trying to stop him from running away) to believe that after arguing Zimmerman tackled Martin to the ground, received those injuries in the struggle, and was knocked off Martin hitting his head on a couple rocks in the yard.
Also mentions that Zimmerman's back was wet and covered in grass which disproves his claim that Martin was bashing his head against concrete.
That supports GZ's case. The grass was wet, his back was on the grass, his head was on the sidewalk. The sidewalk was through the grass. He never claimed that his whole body was on the concrete.
Even if I did find them, what would stop you from claiming that Martin was hitting Zimmerman's head against them?
Because nobody but you is claiming that there were rocks in the grass. All the evidence puts the altercation on or near the sidewalk. It would put a lot of things into question.
Because nobody but you is claiming that there were rocks in the grass. All the evidence puts the altercation on or near the sidewalk. It would put a lot of things into question.
Also put into consideration that no one saw Martin and Zimmerman struggle. We can only take GZ's word.
That supports GZ's case. The grass was wet, his back was on the grass, his head was on the sidewalk. The sidewalk was through the grass. He never claimed that his whole body was on the concrete.
Because nobody but you is claiming that there were rocks in the grass. All the evidence puts the altercation on or near the sidewalk. It would put a lot of things into question.
Actually, Zimmerman's official statement is that while running down the street he lost track of Martin and was walking back to his truck when Martin attacked him. Zimmerman never once admitted to following Martin onto anyone's property and according to his statement the entire thing would have to have happened on the sidewalk or in the street.
Jonathan Good, who lives in the same townhouse complex as Zimmerman, said after hearing a noise behind his townhome...
That statement would indicate that the fight and shooting happened either in Good's backyard or the backyard of someone who lives right next to him. It's from the USA today article you posted earlier. So whether it be rocks or a walkway or whatever, the fact that Zimmerman's back was covered in grass contradicts his claim that Martin attacked him while he was walking on the sidewalk.
I think the common man should have a gun, one main reason is so this country does not turn into the wild west*middle east*, while the other is to protect himself. I do not know about you people but I would rather die fighting then die because I could not defend myself.
Where does my option come from? let's just say I used to live in a place where you could barely get a hand gun while the local mod or thugs could get any gun they wanted bust down the door and take what they want at gun point...
I believe in stricter gun control and regulations, though not to the extent of you can't even hold your friend or family members firearms, but there needs to be something more in place to prevent things like what happened today at my old high school. Marysville Pilchuck was just the subject of a school shooting, in which a 14 year old kid critically injured 4 students, killed one, then himself. It needs to be made more difficult to attain weapons, and greater monitoring needs to be put in place on the trade and purchase of firearms.
I do believe, however, that the common man can possess a firearm, as long as they have been subject to a background check prior to purchase or at the time of purchase.
In the light of the most recent shooting at Charleston and the fact there has been no thread about it yet, I decided to post the following in here, for obvious reasons.
The article addresses the points that are usually made in discussions about gun control, as in this very thread. It supports my opinion on the matter as it refutes common claims made by supporters of lax laws on gun ownership. The analysis makes it clear, in my opinion, that the US need to do something about it; either way this is an interesting read for both sides of the debate.
I'd suggest the problem the US really has is it's own culture and society. As things stand it's trapped itself in a situation where many people feel they need guns to protect them from the guns that everyone else has because of the guns which all the criminals have because all the police are armed with guns to protect them from criminals with guns.
That's where the comparison with Australia is interesting, the mention of this 'cultural shift' and the diminished presence of guns in everyday life as playing a role next to the mere restrictions.
At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.
Less than 2 full sentences in and there's already an outright lie straight from the president's mouth. These kinds of attacks do happen in other "advanced countries", and while they may be less frequent in other countries those other countries also have significantly smaller populations, fewer immigrants, and are lower targets of international terrorist organizations.
This quote is promptly followed by highly questionable poll results. 9 out of 10 Americans don't agree on anything. Oh, and look they're even rebranding gun control legislation as "anti-crime measures". Using NRA extremists and conspiracy theorists as a strawman of those who oppose gun control comes next. Finally, it claims gun control laws in other countries have affects that crime rate statistics prove they don't. And all of that is just the first 1/5 of the article.
If I actually read the rest of the article is it going to get any better? You said
either way this is an interesting read for both sides of the debate.
but it seems like the only reason to think this article is anything other than rhetoric is because
