"Stand You Ground" Laws

[This Vale Of Tears]

I do not trust many drivers on the road, why would I trust people with lethal weapons and the permission to kill whoever they want to kill, as long as they are the only witness, which is exactly what 'stand your ground' permits. It is just another attempt by the NRA to support their base - gun manufactures.

I just heard a statistic on the radio today that 30% of white people who kill black people with a gun are not convicted. Only 3% of blacks who kill whites are found innocent.

(personal attack voluntarily removed)

 

[aspen]

Really? If you kill someone and you are the only person present, it is your word against theirs.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Really? If you kill someone and you are the only person present, it is your word against theirs.

No it isn't Ballistics and forensic evidence tell the true story. It may grate against your ideology and world view, but the evidence all pointed to a self defense shooting in the Zimmerman trial. So seeing that you can't enlist that case to your strange theory, what other case can you cite where Stand Your Ground enabled somebody to execute people on the street?

 

[aspen]

I think you are forgetting that if Zimmerman followed the instructions of the police, Martin would be alive. Perhaps Martin was defending himself from Zimmerman who was following him - only then did Zimmerman kill him.

 

[Dodo_David]

If you kill someone and you are the only person present, it is your word against theirs.

No it isn't Ballistics and forensic evidence tell the true story. It may grate against your ideology and world view, but the evidence all pointed to a self defense shooting in the Zimmerman trial. So seeing that you can't enlist that case to your strange theory, what other case can you cite where Stand Your Ground enabled somebody to execute people on the street?


Again, the Martin/Zimmerman case isn't about Stand Your Ground.

I do see the possibility of Stand Your Ground being misused. There was such a case in the city of Tulsa in which a man shot an unarmed person. In that case, the unarmed person had not physically harmed the shooter, and the shooter had the ability to distance himself from the unarmed person.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I think you are forgetting that if Zimmerman followed the instructions of the police, Martin would be alive. Perhaps Martin was defending himself from Zimmerman who was following him - only then did Zimmerman kill him.

The police weren't giving Zimmerman instructions. It's clear you weren't following this trial closely.

 

[aspen]

Zimmerman was instructed by 911 to remain in his car until the police arrived. He chose to follow Martin instead. Why are you quibbling?

 

[Foreigner]

I think you are forgetting that if Zimmerman followed the instructions of the police, Martin would be alive. Perhaps Martin was defending himself from Zimmerman who was following him - only then did Zimmerman kill him.

-- Yup. If Zimmerman had followed the directions of the police dispatcher, Martin would be alive today.
And if Martin would have just gone home instead of committing felony assault on someone he thought was unarmed, he would also be alive today.

Both the Defense and the Prosecution stated during the trial that Zimmerman following Martin was not illegal.
And the Prosecution agreed that Martin likely did not know Zimmerman was armed, meaning that Zimmerman had not brandished his weapon.

A jury of six women, five of them mothers, two of them members of a minority (including a black mother) unanimously found Zimmerman innocent.
If only one of them had disagreed it could have become a hung jury and the case would have been retried.

The facts remain the same: Trayvon Martin slammed a smaller Zimmerman to the ground, broke his nose and slammed his head into the concrete.
It was then and only then that Zimmer drew his gun and shot him in self-defense.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Zimmerman was instructed by 911 to remain in his car until the police arrived. He chose to follow Martin instead. Why are you quibbling?

Again, it's obvious you didn't follow the thing closely. The dispatcher asked if he was following him. Z said yes. The dispatcher said we don't need you to do that. Z said OK. Z only walked from the front of an apt bldg to the back where he was assaulted.

I think you are forgetting that if Zimmerman followed the instructions of the police, Martin would be alive. Perhaps Martin was defending himself from Zimmerman who was following him - only then did Zimmerman kill him.

If Tray had continued to his apartment he would still be alive.

 

[John S]

iforrest - NINETY PERCENT of the American people want gun registration - even a very large percentage of NRA members. Yet the Republican-controlled House isn't interested in what the people think. They only care what their NRA masters think.
MOST of the people want less bullets in guns.

So - YES - this country needs and wants stricter gun laws - except for the antichristian NRA morons and their paid political lackeys.





Anyone who is bigoted has NO right to call themselves Christian.

 

[Foreigner]

John S, your "this country needs and wants stricter gun laws' claim goes right out the window when you consider one thing:

The two cities with the most restrictive and invasive gun laws in the U.S. (Washington D.C. and Chicago) have the highest levels of gun crime in the ENTIRE NATION.

Why is that? Because the vast, vast, vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people who have no legal right to own the gun the used to commit the crime.
Stronger gun laws WOULD MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.
The current gun crime rate and gun murder rate in those cities PROVES that.

Additional gun laws are not the answer. Especially when you consider they would have not stopped any of the recent mass shootings in the United States.


As far as Stand Your Ground laws...

In 2004, President Obama, as an IL State Senator voted to STRENGTHEN the IL Stand You Ground law.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/07/22/obama-voted-strengthen-illinois-stand-your-ground-law-2004-will-media

 

[Dan57]

iforrest - NINETY PERCENT of the American people want gun registration - even a very large percentage of NRA members. Yet the Republican-controlled House isn't interested in what the people think. They only care what their NRA masters think.
MOST of the people want less bullets in guns.

So - YES - this country needs and wants stricter gun laws - except for the antichristian NRA morons and their paid political lackeys.

Anyone who is bigoted has NO right to call themselves Christian.

So your saying that anyone who believes in their constitutional right to own a gun is anti-Christian? I'm not a big fan of the NRA, but I'm relatively certain that they have members who are Christian. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need guns, but we don't live in a world where no bad people exist.

Imo, everyone discriminates to some degree, but that doesn't automatically put them in the category of a bigot, Matthew 15:25-26.

 

[aspen]

John S, your "this country needs and wants stricter gun laws' claim goes right out the window when you consider one thing:

The two cities with the most restrictive and invasive gun laws in the U.S. (Washington D.C. and Chicago) have the highest levels of gun crime in the ENTIRE NATION.

Why is that? Because the vast, vast, vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people who have no legal right to own the gun the used to commit the crime.
Stronger gun laws WOULD MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.
The current gun crime rate and gun murder rate in those cities PROVES

Lol - what a bunch of bull. Unbelievable! FoxNews-logic at it's finest.....

Hey let's use the example of two of the most crime infested cities, which have had unregulated gun laws for the majority of their existence - which only recently instituted anemic, but slightly more restrictive gun laws than the rest of the country - and claim that the already rampant murder rates and gun violence is practically increasing because of the restrictions!

You know, I bet underage alcohol is also rampant in both of those cities, as well - are you suggesting that we stop that silly restriction too?

 

[Foreigner]

Simple facts, Aspen.

A whine-by and attempted straw man on your part doesn't change that.

FACT: Washington D.C. and Chicago, IL have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
FACT: Washington D.C. and Chicago, IL have the highest gun related crime and gun related murder rates in the nation.

Their gun laws have been in place for decades and the gun related crime in those cities has only gone up.

And as far as your statement, "and claim that the already rampant murder rates and gun violence is practically increasing because of the restrictions!"...If you look what I actually said, the quote is "Stronger gun laws WOULD MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE."

There was no implication whatsoever on my part that stronger gun laws would actually increase gun violence because of the restrictions.

Aspen, at least TRY to be honest. Give it a shot. What could it hurt? Who knows?....it may even become a habit.


.

 

[aspen]

Simple facts, Aspen.

A whine-by and attempted straw man on your part doesn't change that.

FACT: Washington D.C. and Chicago, IL have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
FACT: Washington D.C. and Chicago, IL have the highest gun related crime and gun related murder rates in the nation.

Their gun laws have been in place for decades and the gun related crime in those cities has only gone up.

And as far as your statement, "and claim that the already rampant murder rates and gun violence is practically increasing because of the restrictions!"...If you look what I actually said, the quote is "Stronger gun laws WOULD MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE."

There was no implication whatsoever on my part that stronger gun laws would actually increase gun violence because of the restrictions.

Aspen, at least TRY to be honest. Give it a shot. What could it hurt? Who knows?....it may even become a habit.


.

I am just trying to speak your language, Foreigner. Facts mean nothing to you - you've proven it time and time again. You are nothing but a team player at best and a partisan fan, most of the time.

Be that as it may, no one will be able to convince you to look at reality when you have decide to reject it for 'team god', so why should I bother pointing out poverty statistics in both cities? Unemployment? Corruption? School districts closing schools in entire neighborhoods - literally abandoning the kids to gangs in Chicago? Services, government and private, following the schools? In Foreigners world, none of these silly things can contribute to crime increasing..........

BTW, an accurate comparison is not a strawman. Underage alcohol consumption has skyrocket in both cities, despite the age restriction.

 

[Foreigner]

You are nothing but a team player at best and a partisan fan, most of the time.

-- Hmmm.... generalized, non-specific insults....Apparently your quiver ran out of arrows earlier than usual. Poor thing.

FACT: Washington D.C. and Chicago, IL have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
FACT: Washington D.C. and Chicago, IL have the highest gun related crime and gun-related murder rates in the nation.

That shows that increased gun restrictions have no effect on reducing gun crime and gun-related murders.

Sorry to stick to the topic at hand, but one of us has to.

Be that as it may, no one will be able to convince you to look at reality when you have decide to reject it for 'team god', so why should I bother pointing out poverty statistics in both cities? Unemployment? Corruption? School districts closing schools in entire neighborhoods - literally abandoning the kids to gangs in Chicago? Services, government and private, following the schools? In Foreigners world, none of these silly things can contribute to crime increasing......

-- lol Oh Aspen.....you used to be much better at this.

No one has said those things you listed don't contribute to crime increasing. NO ONE. And you know it. Wasn't even implied LOL

But - and I am left having to dumb it down for you again - additional gun restrictions don't do anything to reduce crime due to those circumstances.
If they did, Chicago and D.C. would be meccas of peace and safety right now.

All that was pointed out - and proven - was that stricter gun laws do not reduce gun violence. That's it.

Please try to focus. Thanks.

 

[aspen]

Yes, I do not have the arsenal of snarky comments that you have Foreigner - sorry to let you down. on the other hand you sound quite subdued compared to our last interaction - perhaps your recent leave of absence has refreshed your spirit.

I like your approach - keep repeating the same information over and over again until people accept it as truth - Joseph Smith would be proud.

As far as gun restrictions in Chicago and Washington DC are concerned, you have failed to prove any correlation and certainly any causation between the current gun restrictions and the increase in crime or even crime in general - remember, you are the person who brought up the increase in crime in the first place, when you were trying to suggest that gun laws are totally ineffective. I could just as easily claim that Chicago and Washington DC would be as bad as Somalia is without the strict laws in place.

Finally, if we used 100% effectiveness as a criteria for the implementation of laws in our country, we would have no laws.

 

[Foreigner]

As far as gun restrictions in Chicago and Washington DC are concerned, you have failed to prove any correlation and certainly any causation between the current gun restrictions and the increase in crime or even crime in general - remember, you are the person who brought up the increase in crime in the first place, when you were trying to suggest that gun laws are totally ineffective.

-- Sorry big guy. You are simply wrong.

You can easily prove me wrong by quoting anything I have said in this thread that shows I claimed that increased gun laws CAUSE increased violence.
But you can't obviously, because I never did......and that is your quandary here.




NOWHERE in this thread have I even remotely attempted to make a connection between increased gun laws and increased crimes...of any type.

NO-WHERE. Not.......even.......once

What I HAVE shown is that increased gun laws do not REDUCE crime.
How? Be the facts that I keep providing and you keep ignoring:
Washington D.C. and Chicago, IL have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
Washington D.C. and Chicago, IL have the highest gun related crime and gun-related murder rates in the nation.

What that shows is that gun crimes and gun-related murders increased in those cities IN SPITE OF increased gun laws.
Not BECAUSE of increase gun laws.


Please, I am begging you. Try to save some dignity and admit you are wrong....or just walk away. Either works.




.

 

[aspen]

again, you are trying to prove a correlation that doesn't exist. And Again, i could just as easily claim that murder rates in both cities would be much worse without the laws.

 

[Angelina]

Back to the Topic please...

Back to the Topic please...Thank you!