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

Straw Man

(6,777 posts)
11. Potential for harm.
Sun Mar 24, 2013, 01:39 PM
Mar 2013
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).

I agree that the potential for abuse is there, but no law -- even "Stand Your Ground" laws -- permits one to shoot someone just for looking threatening. There is always some kind of stipulation about a reasonable fear of physical harm, etc. That's why education is essential, and that is a key component of training classes for CCW permits in most states.

Oddly, New York has no training requirement for a handgun permit, despite its current claim to having the toughest gun laws in the country. Some NY judges are using their discretionary powers to impose such a requirement, but it's not written into state law. One wonders why.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»Gun Culture = Blame-the-V...»Reply #11