Woman denied 'stand your ground' defense

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Respectfully.... You guys keep bringing up candy and skittles. It appears in virtually every one of your posts on this topic. Do you mind explaining the relevance of this? Just a plain old appeal to emotion?

I guess the skittles scared Z so much that he had to kill the kid. I mean, cavities are a ###### but not a reason to kill.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I guess the skittles scared Z so much that he had to kill the kid. I mean, cavities are a ###### but not a reason to kill.

Your lack of logic is laughable.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So in any given year, your chances of being killed by a concealed carry permit holder are around 1 in 6.5 million.

So, why increase those odds, by both increasing the number of these predators and allowing them to hunt outside their own territories, as well as making it harder to punish them when they pursue and kill their prey?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So, why increase those odds, by both increasing the number of these predators and allowing them to hunt outside their own territories, as well as making it harder to punish them when they pursue and kill their prey?

Outside of the differing interpretations of the second amendment, i'd say you would need to compare the murder rate by ccw holders per year to the amount of reported encounters where a CCW either displayed a firearm defensively or fired it during a criminal activity and then determine the level of threat to the CCW at the time.

If the number of "extreme threat" instances is greater than the number of CCW murders than one could conclude that there is a positive ratio of lives saved versus lost.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Sousuke

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Outside of the differing interpretations of the second amendment, i'd say you would need to compare the murder rate by ccw holders per year to the amount of reported encounters where a CCW either displayed a firearm defensively or fired it during a criminal activity and then determine the level of threat to the CCW at the time.

If the number of "extreme threat" instances is greater than the number of CCW murders than one could conclude that there is a positive ratio of lives saved versus lost.

[xebec 195]

So, why increase those odds, by both increasing the number of these predators and allowing them to hunt outside their own territories, as well as making it harder to punish them when they pursue and kill their prey?

Who are the predators? The predators responsible for around 15,000 murders per year in this country, 90,000 forcible rapes, and 800,000 assaults....is that who you are talking about? Clearly it can't be the CHL holders who are responsible for 50 homicides (most justifiable) per year and are 6 times less likely to commit a violent crime than the general population. Only a brain-dead ideologue would make that claim. Since we we know you aren't a brain-dead ideologue, then we agree that we can't increase the number of predators that are allowed to hunt outside their own territories (or anywhere for that matter). And it should be exceedingly risky for them to pursue and kill their prey. Concealed carry and no duty to retreat laws are in place to accomplish these goals. I'm glad we can agree.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If the number of "extreme threat" instances is greater than the number of CCW murders than one could conclude that there is a positive ratio of lives saved versus lost.

The only stats out there are that the CCW license holder in states where such licenses are required are more likely to be injured or killed than the population at large when confronted by a felon. In states where no CCW license is required, the stats are more anecdotal, where the injured or deceased victim had a firearm, but the trend seems to hold. Evidently, it is safer not being armed in public.

Edited April 21, 2012 by ☼

[xebec 195]

The only stats out there are that the CCW license holder in states where such licenses are required are more likely to be injured or killed than the population at large when confronted by a felon. In states where no CCW license is required, the stats are more anecdotal, where the injured or deceased victim had a firearm, but the trend seems to hold. Evidently, it is safer not being armed in public.

Show us the stats then. I can only imagine that you are referencing the Charles Bransas study, and that study was extremely limited both in terms of numbers of cases and geographic area. More importantly, it did not study the "CCW license holder" but anyone who had a gun at the time of the violent encounter- legally or illegally. He made no determination as to whether the person was a criminal, or a citizen who was armed in anticipation of an impending act of violence (like a beaten wife who knew her spouse was likely to kill her in the near term). The study tells us nothing except that people who anticipate violence (criminals, for example) often arm themselves, and often themselves fall victim to violence.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Show us the stats then. I can only imagine that you are referencing the Charles Bransas study, and that study was extremely limited both in terms of numbers of cases and geographic area. More importantly, it did not study the "CCW license holder" but anyone who had a gun at the time of the violent encounter- legally or illegally. He made no determination as to whether the person was a criminal, or a citizen who was armed in anticipation of an impending act of violence (like a beaten wife who knew her spouse was likely to kill her in the near term). The study tells us nothing except that people who anticipate violence (criminals, for example) often arm themselves, and often themselves fall victim to violence.

There was a university study using exactly the criteria I stated. I keep thinking it was the University of Florida . I posted the cite in one of these threads. I will find it again sooner or later.