Perception of firearms owners

[Versus]

[AshleyO]

And that is just it for my laughs today. Holy shit, that was brilliant.

[AshleyO]

Even if the oppressed had equal access to guns, it doesn't change the fact that they don't have the same right to use them and are more likely going to be punished for it. The point is painfully clear. "Sure, you can defend yourself from death now, but you're just going to get a life sentence for it later. What's the point? You're better off just taking it and if you're a good sport maybe that'll make it easier."

This is exactly what I was kinda thinking too. Okay. So let's say we make the oppressed have the ability to wage destruction just as much as any white man. But then what chance does oppressed civilians have against a militarized police, bombs, and actual military? Case in point, I get what you're saying because what's going to happen is even IF we subsidized and mandated gun ownership, the system is going to criminalize and have probable cause to wage deadly violence against the oppressed at every moment. I admit then that my stance and claim that we should do such a thing is ridiculous on the face of it. But I think it at least turns the conversation away from the white concept of self defense and calls into question what gun rights believers REALLY want. They want to play. I get this feeling that they're not serious people or at least they're not oriented to think about having a gun in the proper sense of why one would ever need one. These kinds of white folk really need to understand that the police, the military, and the government at large isn't interested in oppressing them. How can you be oppressed in your very own house? That's why I feel more or less that gun ownership as we understand it or as it's popularly understood is a middle class brat whine. I just can't take them seriously.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Versus

Cite the source for the claim that race has anything to do with a justifiable homicide in states with SYG laws. Do you have any idea what the SYG laws actually say or how they came into being?

[BourbonBoy]

Here's the article from the pic Versus posted:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...-the-data-show

[Versus]

Here's another article that Saya posted.

http://io9.com/disturbing-chart-show...s-of-773490798

[Versus]

Although I should reiterate that it's not exclusively across race lines, as Skidmark seems to have honed in on. That's just one intersection of it.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

This is exactly what I was kinda thinking too. Okay. So let's say we make the oppressed have the ability to wage destruction just as much as any white man. But then what chance does oppressed civilians have against a militarized police, bombs, and actual military? Case in point, I get what you're saying because what's going to happen is even IF we subsidized and mandated gun ownership, the system is going to criminalize and have probable cause to wage deadly violence against the oppressed at every moment. I admit then that my stance and claim that we should do such a thing is ridiculous on the face of it. But I think it at least turns the conversation away from the white concept of self defense and calls into question what gun rights believers REALLY want. They want to play. I get this feeling that they're not serious people or at least they're not oriented to think about having a gun in the proper sense of why one would ever need one. These kinds of white folk really need to understand that the police, the military, and the government at large isn't interested in oppressing them. How can you be oppressed in your very own house? That's why I feel more or less that gun ownership as we understand it or as it's popularly understood is a middle class brat whine. I just can't take them seriously.

It can be a middle class brat whine, yes. It's problematic.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by BourbonBoy

Here's the article from the pic Versus posted:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...-the-data-show

Well to be honest Stand Your Ground was not a factor in the Zimmerman case.

Pre-existing self defense law was a factor in that case.

That also proves that you know nothing about stand your ground laws except media buzz words and sound bytes that are as accurate as a brown bess musket at 75 yards.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Versus

Here's another article that Saya posted.

http://io9.com/disturbing-chart-show...s-of-773490798

It doesn't give a case by case listing or what happened in each killing.

A graph can be slapped together and a "finding" can be assigned any percentage point to make the author of any hit piece seem to be knowledgeable.

[Skippy]

Here is a question for those reading and taking part in this discussion.

Who here subscribes to the thought that anyone who wants a rifle that can hold 20 rounds is a loony?

Or
That those in the era of the founding fathers couldn't dream of multi shot weapons like what we have today?

[Skippy]

The answer for the above question is this little gem from the time period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

[BourbonBoy]

Originally Posted by Skippy

Well to be honest Stand Your Ground was not a factor in the Zimmerman case.

Pre-existing self defense law was a factor in that case.

That also proves that you know nothing about stand your ground laws except media buzz words and sound bytes that are as accurate as a brown bess musket at 75 yards.

You asked for the source and obviously didn't read the entire article. As far as knowing stand your ground, I live in goddamn Texas which has concealed weapons permits and it's legal where if I feel so much as threatened, I can use deadly force be it on the street, in my front yard and even to defend my neighbor's property if I think the cops won't show up on time.

Here's from the article I originally posted:

Page two:

[quote=In states with stand-your-ground laws, the shooting of a black person by a white person is found justifiable 17 percent of the time, while the shooting of a white person by a black person is deemed justifiable just over 1 percent of the time, according to the study. In states without stand-your-ground laws, white-on-black shootings are found justified just over 9 percent of the time.

Such findings "show that it's just harder for black defendants to assert stand-your-ground defense if the victim is white, and easier for whites to raise a stand-your-ground defense if the victims are black," says Darren Hutchinson, a law professor and civil rights law expert at the University of Florida in Gainesville. "The bottom line is that it's really easy for juries to accept that whites had to defend themselves against persons of color."
The potential reasons behind this are multilayered.


On one hand, young black men are disproportionately involved in violent crime. While blacks represent 12 percent of the US population, they make up 55 percent of its homicide victims, the vast majority of those perpetrated by other blacks.


Gun control has yet to have a clear effect on the situation. Violent turf wars in Chicago have sent the murder rate soaring even though the city has some of the strictest gun controls in the entire country.[/quote]


From page three:

'We've got to understand what 'reasonable' means in the context of a great fear of crime, of great fear of violence, and of great fear of black crime and violence," he says. "And you have it again and again: juries saying it's reasonable to take drastic measures to avert drastic harm from black males."


"Encrypted attitudes" about race have a significant effect on the justice system, and stand-your-ground laws give them greater latitude, he adds. "There's a lot of unconscious biases when it comes to race," argues Mr. Armour. "And if you know that, why would you want to create laws that are going to increase the opportunities for unconscious biases to burden and harm a minority, like blacks?"


Such biases can be what Armour calls "statistically justifiable," given higher rates of violent crime and murder in the black community. The problem is that what sociologist Robert Cottrol calls "microcultures of violence" in the poor, black community falsely paint a broader swath of innocent young blacks as criminals.


These impressions have shaped many African-Americans' views about law enforcement, and so colored their views of how stand your ground was employed in the Zimmerman case.


It's been widely pointed out that the Zimmerman trial was not a stand-your-ground case. But for all intents and purposes, it was. While it's true that Zimmerman chose not to request an immunity hearing under the stand-your-ground law, he still has that option if there is a civil lawsuit. If he had requested that hearing, the law would have required he take the stand and explain his actions, which the defense in this case did not want to do.

[Miss Absynthe]

Originally Posted by Skippy

Who here subscribes to the thought that anyone who wants a rifle that can hold 20 rounds is a loony?

Dude, you've already been told about your language with regards to ableism.

Stop it.

[BourbonBoy]

And the final page:

"The concern from the black community is rankled by the fact that there's a disproportionate number of African-Americans incarcerated – an entire generation – which fuels the concern by [blacks] around the country that stand-your-ground laws are aimed at them, that it's just another way that white Americans are trying to do away with generations of African-Americans, almost like a form of genocide," says Jeffrey Swartz, a former Miami-Dade judge who's now a law professor at Cooley Law School in Tampa, Fla.

Yet in Florida, some of the most ardent defenders of the law have been black defense attorneys. The reason: Their black, often young, clients are the most successful users of the law. Indeed, data show that black defendants have a high success rate in invoking stand your ground in black-on-black violence. In fact, if all cases are taken into account, black defendants have a higher success rate in claiming stand your ground than do white defendants, and they attempt to claim stand your ground at higher rates.

"There is a long history of African-American support for gun rights and the principle of armed self-defense," writes Jelani Cobb, director of the Institute for African-American Studies at the University of Connecticut, in The New Yorker. He cites the Deacons for Defense and Justice, an armed posse that protected civil rights marchers, and former NAACP head Walter White, who protected his home with a rifle during the 1906 Atlanta race riots.

History could also offer other lessons pertinent today. To that point, both gun rights and civil rights scholars find common cause in a 1921 case out of Detroit.

That year, a French-educated black doctor named Ossian Sweet moved into a white neighborhood, only to be confronted by a white mob of more than 300 people. When the menacing mob began to agitate and throw rocks, Sweet and a compatriot opened fire from a second-floor window, injuring one man and killing another.

Called out of retirement to defend Sweet, famed defense attorney Clarence Darrow made an impassioned argument to an all-white jury, suggesting they admit their biases in order to ignore them.

The jury found Sweet not guilty.

And here's the Tampa Bay Times which listed Florida's statistics regarding it's Stand Your Ground Law:

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/data

And far as your last question, yes, I do think whoever needs more than ten rounds to shoot something is going way to far unless they're in a law officer or in a war zone.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by BourbonBoy

And the final page:



And here's the Tampa Bay Times which listed Florida's statistics regarding it's Stand Your Ground Law:

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/data

And far as your last question, yes, I do think whoever needs more than ten rounds to shoot something is going way to far unless they're in a law officer or in a war zone.

You still have not shown or posted the Stand Your Ground law as it is written.

I live in West Virginia and we have the same law here.

The very fact that you stated that if you just feel threatened you can shoot someone is proof that you haven't read the law.

The law states that if you REASONABLY fear death or bodily harm and everything about the situation backs up your claim of self defense then no charges will be filed against you.


The video in this link explains SYG laws and how they came into being...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irnD34P2l1w

[Skippy]

As for the statistics you listed about race involvement in SYG shootings.

How many of the shootings were home invasions, attempted r***, robbery, or other violent assault on the defendants?

[Saya]

Are you saying that black people just deserve to get shot by white people?

[BourbonBoy]

In summation the Stand Your Ground as is used in Texas

Castle Doctrine

Texas has a self-defense law based on the castle doctrine. The law has a “stand your ground” clause, meaning the person using physical or deadly force against an attacker does not have a duty to retreat. Deadly force is permissible under the law when a person is attempting to defend himself from deadly force of an attacker in his home, vehicle or place of employment, or against attackers who are committing crimes of kidnapping, murder, sexual assault or robbery.

The law provides civil immunity to persons who use authorized deadly force against attackers.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gun...s-Gun-Laws.htm

Here's the full law in writing:

Subch. C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection
(b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the
force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the
other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person
while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than
necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this sub-chapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the
force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was
necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to
retreat.

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/intern...rms/CHL-16.pdf

The next section goes further and talks about third person defense, but you get the idea.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Saya

Are you saying that black people just deserve to get shot by white people?

The fact that you asked that question shows that you don't understand what I'm saying.

It does not matter the skin color of the attacker or defender in my point of view.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by BourbonBoy

In summation the Stand Your Ground as is used in Texas



http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gun...s-Gun-Laws.htm

Here's the full law in writing:



https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/intern...rms/CHL-16.pdf

The next section goes further and talks about third person defense, but you get the idea.

And how is any of that a bad thing?

It's bad for the attacker, but protects the lawful defender.

It makes no mention of skin color.

[Versus]

Thank you for your opinion, dear. Now go play. Grown ups are talking to each other.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Skippy

The fact that you asked that question shows that you don't understand what I'm saying.

It does not matter the skin color of the attacker or defender in my point of view.

You don't care when black people die?

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Saya

You don't care when black people die?

I care when people die, but if those people that are killed (no matter their skin tone) are involved in violent actions against law abiding peaceful human beings, then they get what they get.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Saya

Are you saying that black people just deserve to get shot by white people?

I think he is explaining the large disparity by implying that black people commit more crimes to justify being shot. I'm not sure.

Bourbonboy, I don't think you've really explained your stance at length. What's your take on what AshleyO and I were talking about?