Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Moonwalk

(2,322 posts)
10. I agree with both. If the woman had a gun in her purse--
Sun Mar 24, 2013, 11:22 AM
Mar 2013

--she likely would have reached in and shot back through the purse. Which doesn't insure her life or that of her child, but she certainly has a right to carry a gun and defend herself if threatened. I certainly wouldn't have blamed her for arming herself against it.

However, erpowers is right that insuring oneself against such events with a gun do lead to a scenario where a person shoots first and only after finds out that they shot someone unarmed, who meant no harm and only "looked" threatening. Again, in such cases, the victim is to blame. And think there-in is the comparison with Martin. It is less about the circumstances (a man going after a kid he was sure was criminal) as it is about the assumption (Martin wearing a hoody = criminal).

And, sure enough, after the shooting many said that Martin shouldn't have been wearing a hoodie. He was to blame for being mistaken for a criminal and, thus, getting followed and getting shot. And, yes, there were others that blamed him for not having his own gun.

Crazy.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»Gun Culture = Blame-the-V...»Reply #10