The Zimmerman Trial (Be Nice)

[Jokeblue]

I'm just going to put something out there.


NO ONE in a civilian position should be authorised leathal force, though this is highly opinionated on my part. I understand there are situational conditions to this, but even still. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have any right to shoot to take someone's life.

I've seen a lot of new stories of innocent people who are shot and killed by people in a similar act of 'self defense'. If you kill some one in self defense you should still be put through trial over the conditions of the attack, the threat level, and necessity of taking action that could result in their death. If the person was actually in any danger of dying, then yeah, ok, I can see that as reasonable. But for Zimmerman to just kill this kid? He could have drawn the gun and try to pull a stalemate, get the kid to stop. But nope. Bang. Dead.

He shouldn't have walked free. And He most definitely shouldn't have been given back the gun.

[topitmunkeydog]

Agree with that yep

[vladnuke]

Alright bruh. Its nice that Trayvon was climbing into peoples yards reportedly after the fact, but lets get some basic info down: Did Zimmerman see Trayvon doing that before pursuing him? Did Zimmerman see Trayvon doing that while pursuing him? Did someone tell him that Trayvon was doing that before he decided to go? No? Then why does it matter in this case, in this particular instant? Cops can't be rectified by coincedence, neither can he.

Freewave addresses this.

[ChocolateChicken]

Nevermind. This post doesn't really matter.

[Navron]

AND YOU KNOW WHAT it's freaking possible to shoot someone without killing them ok. If I had to defend myself against someone with a gun idfk maybe shoot them in the FOOT or something that will not kill them, it will only just give you time to escape and phone for help.

You are not authorized to fire warning shots, nor shoot to wound. Just the act of drawing a weapon is considered using lethal force in of itself. If you shoot to wound you are almost guaranteed to be thrown in jail, in addition to having a suit filed against you for medical expenses. When you draw your weapon, you had better be justified to use lethal force at that point. Doesn't matter if you don't fire, and the attacker runs away. It's still considered using lethal force to end an attack.

If the suspect was a short white kid with a tie and glasses and other stuff society percieves as not suspicious, would this even be a case? Why did people perceive Treyvons activities as suspicious? Because they are bloody racists.

Short white kids with ties and glasses aren't normally involved in criminal activities. You're confusing criminal profiling with racial profiling.

If you wore Pakistani clothing, I'd probably assume you're a devout Muslim, but if you were sneaking around in a parking garage, looking under various cars, and don't have any keys in your hand, I'd probably call the cops.

I have a very racially diverse command, and a lot of the blacks at my command dress up in street attire whenever they're off-duty. I wouldn't bat an eye to anybody wearing those clothes walking down the street, yet if I saw the same thing Zimmerman saw (according to the 911 audio), I probably would have been suspicious as well.

NO ONE in a civilian position should be authorised leathal force

You have a fundamental right to life. To state that nobody in a civilian position should be authorized lethal force is to say that civilians do not have a right to live.

By the statistics, cops end up shooting more innocent people accidentally than concealed carriers.

Cops also do NOT have an obligation to defend your life. You could have an insane person that's going to kill you and your family in exactly 30min, and the cops could go, "lol nope," and they won't be held liable for it. Don't believe me? Read it yourself: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... .html?_r=0

Alright bruh. Its nice that Trayvon was climbing into peoples yards reportedly after the fact, but lets get some basic info down: Did Zimmerman see Trayvon doing that before pursuing him? Did Zimmerman see Trayvon doing that while pursuing him? Did someone tell him that Trayvon was doing that before he decided to go? No?

This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Source: http://misterbillohno.newsvine.com/_new ... n-911-call

In the audio of the full call itself, Zimmerman doesn't sound like somebody hell bent on murder. He sounds paranoid, to be perfectly honest.

Zimmerman also filed suit against NBC for defamation when NBC edited the 911 call to make him sound racist, by quickly giving up Trayvon's race.

Now, let's think about this logically. If you were trying to get away with murder, and you're on trial trying to fake innocence, why would you file a separate case against a big media corporation, and bring more spotlight on the case and yourself? That sounds like a surefire way to up your chances of being proven guilty, and not in the best interests of somebody trying to get away with murder.

[caprixsnare]

topitmunkeydog is right.
To be honest my whole town is filled with people who cross lawns and wear hoodies it fairly normal in a southern slow paced american suburb. those would not be sufficient enough to pursue on your own. I know that being a young black male is an fairly quick criminal label floating over your head when ever i go out to ride the buss a cop would approach me if I stay for longer than roughly 15 minutes (which sucks because the buss takes 30 minutes to reach the stop) I have been approached by people while delivering papers, riding my bike. I know that if Maryland unnecessarily loose gun laws i would have a good three or four gun wounds in me and I know I'm not the only one allot of my friends have had this happen to them (note that we are all very non suspicious/ threatening individuals).

[Genkar]

I'm just going to throw out what I had heard about the event.

For one thing, Martin was not a nice kid to begin with. There's evidence he's been abusing drugs since 2011 and he has a history of fighting, not to mention he had a muscular build to begin with. That's not really relevant to the event, but it doesn't count for nothing.

The neighborhood Zimmerman was on watch for had already had recent calls for 2 black young adults who were robbing homes. Zimmerman was patrolling, and as Navron said, Trayvon wasn't just walking on the sidewalk, he was going through people's yards, in the rain, at night. Plus, he's a young adult, who also happens to be black, not long after the first few calls. That should immediately rise suspicion, not because he's black, but due to the setting, the prior events that had occurred, and the actions of Trayvon Martin at that time.

Zimmerman then called in and told him that he was pursuing the kid, to which they said something along the lines of "You don't have to do that" or "Don't do that", but I honestly can't remember which. Either way, the really the only main flaw Zimmerman made was getting out of his vehicle there. He was just trying to do his job, because like Nav said, if he hadn't gotten out, and Trayvon had invaded someone's home and killed someone, what would people say about Zimmerman then? It would have looked like he just sat around and did nothing.

Anyway, Zimmerman exits his vehicle and starts toward Martin. I don't remember why, but in the recollection I read, something happened and Zimmerman was headed back to his vehicle when Trayvon approached him and started to harass him. Trayvon ends up hitting Zimmerman in the nose,his nose immediately starts bleeding, and Trayvon pushes him onto the sidewalk and just starts beating down on him. Supposedly, Trayvon noticed he had the gun, and immediately went for it, to which Zimmerman struggled to keep a hold of it, and then fired. Keep in mind, it was raining, night, and Trayvon had most likely just broken this guy's nose and probably given him a black eye or two. How the hell is he supposed to see where he shot? For all we know, he didn't mean to kill him, and if he didn't shoot then, was he supposed to just let himself die there on the sidewalk?


I'm also just going to throw out there the fact that this shouldn't even be a case on racism. Instead of looking at it in the sense that a hispanic person killed a black person, we should just be looking at it as a case where a person killed a person, because if Trayvon weren't black, and people weren't so quick to pull the racism card, this wouldn't be as big of an issue as it is.

[CaptainFluffatun]

I think Zimmerman is guilty, but the doubt is there, and it is guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt, so if I were on the jury I would have to vote not guilty. I do not, however, agree with the "Justice for Trayvon" protests, because Zimmerman got his trial. People LOVE it when the system works in their favor, but when it doesn't they suddenly hate it. You don't get to pick and choose with our justice system. Zimmerman went through the same process as other people. Move on to matters that haven't been settled (it's fine to talk about it, but people should stop focusing their energy on it). That is all I have to say on the matter.

TL;DR: I think he's guilty, but he was found not guilty so move on.

[topitmunkeydog]

Navron, I'm not talking about punishment for using lethal force. I'm talking about, if you shoot someone's leg rather than thorough the chest or head YOU ARE NOT KILLING A PERSON. That should at least have some moral value to people.

Because usually people don't go "this guy is threatening me so ill just kill him and call it a day." Unless you are a real jerk. I would think "this guy is threatening me so I'll do what I can to get away to safety." Who even cares about what the punishment is if you have AVOIDED KILLING SOMEONE instead of shooting them dead.

It's like in Harry Potter when Dobby says "Dobby didn't intend to kill! Dobby only wanted to maim, or seriously injure!!"
That's probably not the best example

[ChocolateChicken]

Compression on the master track works well for rock music better than EDM I think.

[Freewave]

-Zimmerman walked away from Treyvon, and was attacked by Treyvon on the way back to his car.

-Treyvon was mercilessly beating Zimmerman during this attack.

-As a result of Treyvon's beatings, Zimmerman suffered serious injuries to his head and face.

-While Zimmerman was pinned down and having his head slammed against pavement by Treyvon, Zimmerman shot Treyvon.

-Zimmerman had a fair trial before a jury of his peers under US Federal Law and Florida State Law.
not starting
-He was found not guilty as a result of this fair trial, because of the evidence supplied to the court, he had adequate reason for self-defense.

Let's be fair in that the biggest problem with the case is that the only people who really know what truly happened are the guy who's being tried as a murderer and the guy who was killed. That's why a lot of the information regarding it is somewhat one-sided (although the media has been biased in the other direction i think). I don't blame Zimmerman for trying to protect himself while being attacked or for trying to defend himself in a court of law afterwards.

I do believe that he was ultimately the catalyst for this becoming a fatal encounter because he was not a cop and shouldn't be pretending that he is one. Devon wouldn't have attacked a cop because they would have identified themselves as one. I'm not THAT surprised that there wasn't enough evidence that to prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that Zimmerman didn't MURDER Devon but he could have stopped this from ever occurring by avoiding that encounter in the first place. Doesn't seem like manslaughter was ever seriously shopped to the jury (or may be truly applicable either). A civil case won't have the same narrow criteria and may find Zimmerman more responsible than the criminal one so i wouldn't expect that Zimmerman will ever truly get his life back on track again.

[Jokeblue]

NO ONE in a civilian position should be authorized lethal force

You have a fundamental right to life. To state that nobody in a civilian position should be authorized lethal force is to say that civilians do not have a right to live.

What? No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that people shouldn't be killing each other in the first place because like you said, we all have a fundamental right to live. To kill someone else in 'self-defence' if the threat level isn't what you think, isn't that still wrong? The point of killing someone else in self-defence should be when it's a definite kill or be killed situation. Imagine if you got into a fight with someone and they pulled a fucking gun on you. I'd be scared shitless. Most people would be scared shitless. Isn't it more advantageous for you to simply pull the gun, stop the situation, and leave? Everyone lives. Can't it be that simple?

The answer is no because the laws are fucked up (and also too many people have guns. why the shit does everybody have to have a freakin gun? Not that i'm attributing this all to gun ownership problems, but America has pretty bad gun ownership problems, and a lot of these problems could go away or be avoided if they actually removed the pole from their ass and tightened up on gun regulations.)


I did say originally, too, that this is highly opinionated, and govorned by situational conditions.

But I beleive that no one has the authority to judge whether another lives or dies. No one has the right to take someone else's life.

[caprixsnare]

but treyvon was also know to be a very kind and charitable member of society he played an active role in the community was know to befriend anyone who was in need and showed allot of school pride. and cutting across peoples lawns are fairly normal in the southern suburbs its a normal thing i haven't seen a place were someone hasn't.
(at this point i'm sure people are just are using this to fight over gun laws)

[topitmunkeydog]

goodness gracious

my mom always looks in people's windows and that's because she is a big fan of interior design so why wouldn't Treyvon be its because of race stereotypes. People think black teens steal stuff and middle aged white ladies like mid century modern lamps.

[Navron]

As a short background on myself, please note that I grew up in a very anti-gun, democratic family, who believed that even killing animals while hunting was morally wrong, and for a short portion of my childhood, we were vegetarians.

My opinions on self-defense and gun laws have changed over the years by reading through different case studies, legal statutes, and non-biased facts about gun violence. My family has slowly become more conservative (although they don't own guns themselves), but they at least are comfortable with me being a carrier.

Navron, I'm not talking about punishment for using lethal force. I'm talking about, if you shoot someone's leg rather than thorough the chest or head YOU ARE NOT KILLING A PERSON. That should at least have some moral value to people.

To shoot somebody without the intent to kill puts into question why you had to resort to lethal force in the first place. It is to be used as a last resort, when there isn't any question that the person threatening you WILL kill you if you don't act.

Guns also do not do as good a job as video games and movies show. If you shoot a non-lethal area such as a leg or arm, there's no guarantee that the assailant will even feel it. Even shooting for center mass or the head, a person on drugs or adrenaline may take an entire 8-10rnd magazine to even halt their advance.

If faced with a knife threat, you generally don't even have enough time to draw a weapon, much less aim and shoot at an attacker, before they're in range to kill you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo

It's like in Harry Potter when Dobby says "Dobby didn't intend to kill! Dobby only wanted to maim, or seriously injure!!"
That's probably not the best example

It's not even an example at all. Please don't tell me your views of self-defense and lethal force are based off movies.

The answer is no because the laws are fucked up (and also too many people have guns. why the shit does everybody have to have a freakin gun? Not that i'm attributing this all to gun ownership problems, but America has pretty bad gun ownership problems, and a lot of these problems could go away or be avoided if they actually removed the pole from their ass and tightened up on gun regulations.

Chicago, IL has some of the strictest gun control laws in the entire United States, to the point it's effectively a city wide gun ban. Recently they passed concealed carry laws, but you still need a permit to conceal carry, and you need a permit to buy a gun. Both of which are extremely difficult to apply for, and even then, the police departments will generally deny most applicants.

Make no mistake, Chicago effectively still has a city wide gun ban. So why does Chicago have some of the worst gun violence in the entire country?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/0 ... 58463.html

Please, enlighten me. I'd really like to know why a city where guns are illegal has some of the worst gun violence in America?

but treyvon was also know to be a very kind and charitable member of society he played an active role in the community was know to befriend anyone who was in need and showed allot of school pride. and cutting across peoples lawns are fairly normal in the southern suburbs its a normal thing i haven't seen a place were someone hasn't.
(at this point i'm sure people are just are using this to fight over gun laws)

Showed a lot of school pride? LOL, I didn't know school pride involves getting suspended 3 times for disciplinary reasons and graffiti. One of which he was caught with jewelry that wasn't his.

Keep drinking the media kool-aid. I'm sure they haven't shown any of THESE PICTURES on TV yet, have they?

[Navron]

goodness gracious

my mom always looks in people's windows and that's because she is a big fan of interior design so why wouldn't Treyvon be its because of race stereotypes. People think black teens steal stuff and middle aged white ladies like mid century modern lamps.

Nobody has a right to trespass on other people's property and invade their privacy. I would be just as suspicious if a middle aged women was wandering around in my yard and peeking through my windows after sunset, in the middle of the rain.

Also, thanks for everybody for keeping things civil. I can be condescending and smug at times, but I do take your views and opinions into consideration, and I do a lot of research before I insert a counter-point. All I ask is that you do the same.

And please let me know if you would like me to cite you sources of any of my claims.

[ganondox]

He killed a 17 year old dude regardless of race or any details that is WRONG

If Treyvon was an elderly lady in a pink dress, people wouldn't find her suspicious.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT it's freaking possible to shoot someone without killing them ok. If I had to defend myself against someone with a gun idfk maybe shoot them in the FOOT or something that will not kill them, it will only just give you time to escape and phone for help.

On it's own OF COURSE it's wrong to kill ANYONE. However, details do matter. For example, say there is a serial killer shooting up kids. Is it wrong to kill him in order to protect innocent life? Ultimately Martin's age is another detail, and unless your ethic system has age trump everything else it needs to be factored in with all other details. Also, even if age did trump everything, the other details may factor in. For example, it might be okay to kill a 17 year old if he is trying to kill a 5 year old. And if it's a life or death entangle between two 17 year olds the other details would become relevant. Now, let me ask you, do you really believe age trumps everything? Should a man let himself DIE rather than kill a 17 year-old? I want you to really think about that. If this was a black and white case (dear God, no pun intended) than Zimmerman wouldn't be declared innocent.

Actually, if an elderly women in a pink dress was searching homes during a rainstorm and you were to outrule the possibility of dementia it would be VERY suspicious. XD Here, listen to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trayv ... _Call1.ogg Now, this clip was actually manipulated when the public was first exposed to it, cutting out portions like the operator asking for the person's race so it appeared Zimmerman was racist. Is that in anyway ethical? Also, it should be noted that if you listen carefully that Zimmerman wasn't even sure if he was black at first, which pretty much out rules the possibility that there was racial profiling. He might have done some profiling based on his dress, but according to him it was based on his behavior.

Okay, have you ever shot a gun before? Do you know how freaking hard it is to shoot someone in the foot? If you want to shoot someone non-lethally the place that will cause the least damage is the buttocks, but unless they are fleeing from you or you are sneaking up on them from behind that isn't possibile. If you are trying to stop someone approaching you at a distance it's best to aim for the thighs, and if they are too close it's best to aim for the shoulder. It doesn't change the fact the torso, which Trayvon was shot in, is the biggest target. Second, shooting him in the foot probably wouldn't have done him much good because apparently Trayvon was already on top of him. Sometimes lethal force is necessary to stop someone. It's sad, but true. Finally, even if it would have been best to shoot him in the foot expecting him to be able to do so in the middle of a life threatening fight is ridiculous.

Also you guys are all white. I'm half Pakistani, and, while I don't dress in traditional Pakistani clothing, I'm sure that if I did, people would be immediately suspicious of me being a terrorist. White people don't have that problem so really you can't understand the situation in its entirety. Well I can't either. We can all say we understand but really society is so cruel to people you probably would need this to happen to you in order to understand it. yeah, race is an issue in this case. If the suspect was a short white kid with a tie and glasses and other stuff society percieves as not suspicious, would this even be a case? Why did people perceive Treyvons activities as suspicious? Because they are bloody racists.

Also the reason I don't wear Pakistani clothes is because ehhhh they're not very pretty :C basically I like really colorful clothes but men there only wear white and beige most of the time. And I lived in Texas all my life so I don't really have a Pakistani upbringing, both my parents are atheists, etc.

Let me tell you something. I remember reading once in Sociological textbook that only the majority could discriminate. This made no sense to me whatsoever, not only did I see it as being blatantly false, but downright offensive. Now, in many sects of feminism it's stated that women cannot be sexist towards men because men are in the privilege position, and that's the one point I can never agree with. I see such beliefs as being way too black and white, assuming that society is completely homogenous, and that the privileged group is privileged at every situation among every group of people at every location and time. I view discrimination as happening on a personal level.

Now, for most of my life I lived in a predominantly african-american community as a white person. I was often the only white person in class, and I have been bullied for being white (being a nerd as well doesn't help either). I'd being lying if I say I've never been scared in situations were I've noticed I was the only white person. I'm usually fine with being the only white guy, but when I don't know anyone and several people give off those "gangsta" vibes I can't help but feel threatened. Now, since then I've lived across the world, where I've been a "gringo" or a "bule". It's usually not a problem, but from security seminars it's been made very clear that there are people who would kill me just because I'm American, which they can deduce just from the color of my skin, my clothes, or the way I talk. It's not my choice to be American. No, I can't say I know how it feels to be black, or really an oppressed minority in general, but I do know how it feels to be different from everyone around you, and I do know how it feels to be hated for something that I can never change and I never asked for.

I will say this. For a period of time until he moved to Texas (irony?) my best friend was Pakistani. While I've never really gotten along well with the gangsta culture I have many friends who are black and at times my best friend has been black. That doesn't really mean anything, I could still be pretty racist, but I'm just putting that out. Now, for the bottom line, I will say something more significant. When I first heard about the case I was initially on Trayvon's side. However, as I actually read into the case I realized that race never had anything to do with it, and that what Zimmerman did was justified, in the very least to a degree if not completely. Changing this into a race issue ignores what actually happened. It makes people fail to realize that this isn't a story of one son, it's a story of two. Yes, the death certainly was a tragedy and shouldn't have happened, and we should grieve the loss, but ruining a second man's life isn't going to bring back the dead.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

In a nutshell - a guy was beaten up, felt that his life was in danger and killed someone in what he felt was his defense. Whether killing him was necessary is a different matter, but bringing racism into it only confuses things with political-correctness.

The way I see it, the color of someone's skin should not have anything to do with this. The grounds of which the killing took place and the necessity of killing should be the only concerns at the end of the day. At least in my opinion anyway.

Idk I don't like race to enter into things that aren't because of racism. If he went "EEK. A BLACK." and shot him for no reason, by all means call him a racist pig.

[Freewave]

goodness gracious

my mom always looks in people's windows and that's because she is a big fan of interior design so why wouldn't Treyvon be its because of race stereotypes. People think black teens steal stuff and middle aged white ladies like mid century modern lamps.

Nobody has a right to trespass on other people's property and invade their privacy.

Right but Zimmerman wasn't protecting HIS property and it he was the community watchdog he didn't do much WATCHING in this case. Trayvon was also a minor being followed by an adult and has a right to his own self-defense. There's a good chance that Treyvon may have been a bit of a delinquent (based on some things that the media have slipped out) but he wasn't committing any crimes where he needed to be confronted because anyone is in danger. Hell he might have gone through people's yards to try to get the adult trailing him to lose him.

No danger? No lethal force... it's not that hard of a leap. Again Zimmerman was not a cop and shouldn't have pretended that he was one and pursued the kid. Once Tryavon was beating him then Zimmerman had ample right to defend but all the build up to the incident i put on Zimmerman's plate.

[ganondox]

but treyvon was also know to be a very kind and charitable member of society he played an active role in the community was know to befriend anyone who was in need and showed allot of school pride. and cutting across peoples lawns are fairly normal in the southern suburbs its a normal thing i haven't seen a place were someone hasn't.
(at this point i'm sure people are just are using this to fight over gun laws)

Same goes for George Zimmerman. From what I've read he sounded like a man very concerned about justice and doing what was right. He was in school to become a judge, the people who knew him only had good things to say about him, and there was reports he stood up against a police officer in order to defend a homeless black man. What happened was a tragedy, there is not mistaking that, but that doesn't mean we need to make it worse be ruining more lives.

[Navron]

Trayvon was also a minor being followed by an adult and has a right to his own self-defense.

Again, while being followed is nerve wracking, it is not sufficient ground to attack a person in self-defense, and if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman because he was following him, then Trayvon was in fact committing a crime at that point.


What frustrates me most about this case is the media having played as judge, jury, and executioner. Like ganondox, I was originally on Trayvon's side as well, based on the first news reports that came out last year about the shooting, but after doing my own research, it isn't hard to see all the counter-evidence and hidden details in the case that the media deliberately didn't release, such as those photos linked above, taken directly from Trayvon's phone.

Have you ever made a bad decision? Made an error in judgement that led to a bad situation? I don't think there's many of us who haven't. Now what if that bad decision led to a situation in which you had to defend your own life? Should you be tried and convicted (executed in some states) because of your poor decision making process, despite having not actually done anything to break the law?

Make no mistake, Zimmerman's life is completely ruined, and for all we know based on the evidence, there's still that lingering doubt that Zimmerman could be a completely innocent person who's only crime is worrying about the safety of his community. Is it fair to automatically judge the worst in a person without knowing that person yourself? In an ironic twist, that's pretty much doing the same thing that many accuse Zimmerman of doing.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

[caprixsnare]

ok gun control theory is a double edge sword too much gun control= mexican cartells own the country

too little= Virginia tech once a month and shooting visitors in the shower.

personally i believe a license to own a gun should take years and should be a mild pain in the flank to maintain legal ownership this way we can reduce the amount of people use guns to open their own door in the morning. and second of all guns are a privilege not a god given right no one wants to be shot and those who disagree probably have never been shot before. guns are not necessary at point blank and whenever someone gets shot it usually causes a crap ton of ripples in the local community. if people were angels then guns would be used for something other than killing and if guns were angels they would be called tazers.

[ganondox]

goodness gracious

my mom always looks in people's windows and that's because she is a big fan of interior design so why wouldn't Treyvon be its because of race stereotypes. People think black teens steal stuff and middle aged white ladies like mid century modern lamps.

Nobody has a right to trespass on other people's property and invade their privacy.

Right but Zimmerman wasn't protecting HIS property and it he was the community watchdog he didn't do much WATCHING in this case.

I don't get while protecting your own property is legally more important than protecting the community, that doesn't make any sense to me. I guess that's why I lean socialist.

[caprixsnare]

I don't get while protecting your own property is legally more important than protecting the community, that doesn't make any sense to me. I guess that's why I lean socialist.

that's the logic most american gangs at best if we Americans use that logic we will wind up wit a Gotham city impostors mindset.

[Navron]

ok gun control theory is a double edge sword too much gun control= mexican cartells own the country

too little= Virginia tech once a month and shooting visitors in the shower.

personally i believe a license to own a gun should take years and should be a mild pain in the flank to maintain legal ownership this way we can reduce the amount of people use guns to open their own door in the morning. and second of all guns are a privilege not a god given right no one wants to be shot and those who disagree probably have never been shot before. guns are not necessary at point blank and whenever someone gets shot it usually causes a crap ton of ripples in the local community. if people were angels then guns would be used for something other than killing and if guns were angels they would be called tazers.

Self-defense is not the only purpose for owning guns, and why many die-hard gun lobbyists insist on fighting all forms of gun control, including ones that don't seem to be that big of a hassle, such as gun registration, or a limit on what kinds of guns are accessible to civilians.

On paper, it makes sense to have a national gun registry that gun owners must register their firearms to.

The big flaw in that system, is now you have a registered address of every gun owner in the country, and in the event (however unlikely, but possible) that the government attempts to take over the country by force, they have the ability to visit the majority of gun owners and confiscate their weapons first, eliminating the possibility of an insurgency or uprising that could overrun the government.

It's not as far fetched of a scenario than it seems, and it's hard to picture America becoming oppressive because we've had it good for us for quite some time, but it doesn't mean it's not possible.

The other issue with gun control measures is that it only effects the law-abiding citizens. Criminals won't register their guns into a national registry, and more than likely they would steal weapons from law-abiding citizens to commit their crimes to avoid any legal case tracing the crime back to them.

Criminals have a sense of self-preservation as well. That's why the majority of mass shootings occur in schools, movie theaters, and federal buildings, all of which are illegal for a person to carry a gun at. They have a much bigger chance of success when they know they will not be met force by force. Criminals are much less likely to commit crimes against innocent people if they don't know who might be carrying a weapon or not.

that's the logic most american gangs at best if we Americans use that logic we will wind up wit a Gotham city impostors mindset.

So people who run illegal operations and murder innocent civilians for trespassing their turf is the same as protecting a civilian community from criminals that attempt to harm them?