|
45520. robertjayb - 12/7/2012 8:08:32 PM Concerned has the transcript at post 45506 above... 45521. judithathome - 12/7/2012 8:57:21 PM I don't care who said what...I think killing a kid for walking home is beyond the pale. Zimmerman, if indeed he felt threatened, could have shot Martin in the kneecap or in some other non-lethal spot that would have lessened the threat to life and slowed down the (alleged) menace from Martin toward Zimmerman...which I feel wasn't in any way real.
45522. arkymalarky - 12/7/2012 9:19:41 PM I totally agree with Judith. 45523. iiibbb - 12/7/2012 9:47:04 PM You don't shoot kneecaps. The principal is that if you are going to shoot at all, you shoot to kill.
This highlights the point that a gun is a lousy thing to carry for self defense if that's the only thing you carry. It provides you know recourse for the range of situations that could arise before a gun is warranted. Pepper spray and gun, taser and gun.... that's what someone serious about self defense would carry. Home defense with a gun makes more sense if you can work in a dog too.
You want options is the main point. Pulling the trigger should be (is) highly undesirable. 45524. arkymalarky - 12/7/2012 11:28:57 PM There was zero reason to pull it in Z's case 45525. Wombat - 12/8/2012 12:07:56 AM I suspect that Trayvon Martin, who was freaked out by being trailed by Zimmerman, turned on him and started beating him up. 45526. Wombat - 12/8/2012 12:09:11 AM I also think that Zimmerman should have been charged immediately. 45527. arkymalarky - 12/8/2012 12:49:21 AM Probably so. Zimmerman followed and shot someone because he's a chickens hit. I really think race is aside from that. 45528. arkymalarky - 12/8/2012 12:50:07 AM I hate autocorrect. I want my droid back. 45529. robertjayb - 12/8/2012 3:12:32 AM I agree that Zimmerman should have been charged immediately. I believe it would have been better for him and for whatever sort of justice might result, which in any case is likely to be unsatisfactory to all concerned.
-------------------------------------
I think killing a kid for walking home is beyond the pale.
Probably won't get much argument on that point.
---------------------------------------------------------
You don't shoot kneecaps. The principal is that if you are going to shoot at all, you shoot to kill.
Exactly. I asked a USAF marksmanship instructor to teach spouse how to handle our five-shot .38 revolver. He told her that if she had to fire to use all five rounds, or at least three, holding two back in case the villain is still moving. I always knew that if she decided to shoot someone, including me, there would be five holes in the body. For someone who knew zip about firearms, or maybe because she knew zip, she followed the instructions and became a darn good shot.
Another important point is that a dead perp is not going to testify against you in court.
------------------------------------------------
I suspect that Trayvon Martin, who was freaked out by being trailed by Zimmerman, turned on him and started beating him up.
Wombat's scenario mirrors mine. Both necessarily imagined.
------------------------------------------
45530. judithathome - 12/8/2012 6:11:08 AM My husband was a munitions expert and bomb builder in the Viet Nam war and beyond...he served 26 years in the miltary. He is also a black belt....
We do not own a weapon...no gun in this house....never will have a gun in our home.
He thinks Zimmerman is a first class wuss. And so do I. 45531. iiibbb - 12/8/2012 7:20:38 AM I'm not a black belt. I believe the key elements to self defense are 1) avoid conflict 2) avoid contact 3) do not telegraph what you know 4) escalate decisively 5) fight dirty 6) shoot to kill.
winning a fight has more to do with what the other guy doesn't know than what you know, and wjo is more committed. 45532. judithathome - 12/8/2012 7:39:57 AM I personally think winning the fight is being the bigger person and solving the situation in a non-lethal way. 45533. iiibbb - 12/8/2012 8:03:07 PM That falls under line item 1 45534. judithathome - 12/8/2012 8:41:42 PM You don't shoot kneecaps. The principal is that if you are going to shoot at all, you shoot to kill.
THIS is what is wrong with carrying/owning guns...we have this Wild West attitude in this country that agrees with you overwhelmingly. Shoot to kill...create laws that make it perfectly acceptable! Let everyone and the horse he rode in on carry a gun..a few nutcases get access to guns? Who cares! They are sane 89% of the time!
People these days snort at the idea of conflict resolution...they feel they have that...in their pocket. And in case the other guy has one, too...well, shoot to kill! And in court later, if you are unlucky enough to be run in for killing someone, chances are there will be a majority of your peers who think you were 100% correct and you can go home and clean your gun, so you'll have it ready NEXT time.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
45535. iiibbb - 12/8/2012 9:20:57 PM Judith.. you are reading it the wrong way. This isn't the wild west it is the fact that you should NEVER think of a firearm is a wounding weapon. You could shoot the leg, sever an artery, kill them anyway.
Saying to a judge that you only meant to wound them is not an acceptable defense for murder in court... there is no shoot to wound.
If the person thing you are shooting is not a lethal threat, you should not shoot in the first place.
It is a DEADLY weapon.
The Rules
RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET 45536. iiibbb - 12/8/2012 9:24:59 PM To put it another way; if the goal is to wound, injure... a gun is a completely inappropriate tool. 45537. judithathome - 12/8/2012 10:12:14 PM You are mistaking my remarks as something they are not...I am against carrying guns AT ALL...I am against having a gun in the house AT ALL.
I am against guns. For sport, for protection, for anyhing. Period.
If your laws are to be taken to their logical extreme...that pointing a gun at someone automatically means you want that person dead, are you also saying police should shoot to kill every time? Is THAT why police are armed? To potentially kill everyone they seek to subdue?
Or are those laws simply for those of us who are so paranoid we think we need guns to protect ourselves from the government...a government with an army, tanks, and warhead-armed drones?
And please don't say if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.
45538. iiibbb - 12/8/2012 10:18:12 PM I won't.
It's a free society. Gun rights are guaranteed. It is up to me to decide what protection I wish to have.
If you think a black-belt serves your needs that's fine. Unfortunately I've had 2 close calls that made me a gun owner. I have a few friends where a gun made the difference in their continued presence in this world (and neither of them actually shot anyone).
I certainly don't have a desire to shoot anyone, but I can conceive of circumstances where I consider it my prerogative in spite of your feelings about them. Just as I think my opinions about abortion aren't relevant to what a woman does with her body.
It's the cost of a free society. 45539. judithathome - 12/8/2012 11:03:24 PM It's too great a cost for me.
We lived in Japan...a country that is very crowded and people have limited "personal space". Gun ownership is outlawed there and little kids can walk around busy city streets day or night and feel safe. I never felt more secure than when I lived in a country that didn't allow people to tote guns around.
Same with Germany...no guns.
You know what the difference is? People respect the law in those two countries...if someone messes with a child in Japan, it is instant prison and many times the death penalty...Japanese people know this is the law and they respect the hell out of laws in their country. They don't mess with kids.
In Germany, if you get caught once and get a DUI...you lose your license for a year. If you get caught again, it's 5 years...third time, you lose it for life and serve time. Taxis do a booming business in Germany. And laws are respected there.
Here, we don't have that much respect for the law of the land. And we feel like the way to settle many arguments is to kill the person with whom we're disagreeing.
So what if a few innocent men, women, and chldren get killed in the meantime...that's the cost of a "free" society. Collateral damage.
|
