EJ Dionne: Why the NRA pushes ‘Stand Your Ground’

[alp227]

It’s understandable if unfortunate that the controversy surrounding the killing of Trayvon Martin has polarized the country along both racial and ideological lines. But there is one issue that should not have any racial connotations: the urgency of repealing “Stand Your Ground” laws.

And leave it to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to speak the blunt truth about why these laws are dangerous — and why the National Rifle Association keeps pushing them anyway.

“In reality,” Bloomberg said in a speech before the National Press Club last week, “the NRA’s leaders weren’t interested in public safety. They were interested in promoting a culture where people take the law into their own hands and face no consequences for it. Let’s call that by its real name: vigilantism.”

full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-nra-pushes-stand-your-ground/2012/04/15/gIQAL458JT_story.html

[pipoman]

1. He doen't understand the word "vigilantism".

It is in place for people who lawfully defend themselves against attackers not to face prison sentences and civil suits sending them into destitution because some asshole decided to try to victimize them...that's why SYG laws are in place.

[JDPriestly]

3. Don't carry a gun, and you won't kill, not even in supposed self-defense.

The problem with the NRA is that they have no proposals to save lives, to discourage the wrongful use of guns. They seem to just want to sell guns. They educate on the use of guns. But they don't do enough to educate to discourage the misuse of guns.

The NRA could act responsibly and start a campaign to curtail the use of guns on our streets altogether. They have the means and the power to launch a program to educate all Americans about the dangers and uses of guns. Why don't they focus on that rather than on selling more guns and undoing centuries of laws that already protect your right to self-defense and have served us well for a long, long time?

Pulling out your gun and shooting someone who is unarmed just because they hit you or argued or became angry with you is not acceptable. Just what happened in the Trayvon Martin case, we don't know, but as a rule, if you kill someone, whether with a knife, and automobile, a car you had better be prepared in most cases to defend that killing in a court of law.

If your child were shot while unarmed, you would want the killer to have to defend himself in court.

[pipoman]

5. Stand up and take your murdering like a man, huh?

So selfish anyone would value their own life over that of an attacker, huh?

[ileus]

14. It's the price you gotta pay not to pollute society.

it's the only honorable thing to do...

[JDPriestly]

43. Problem is that criminals generally think they were attacked first.

Just go sit in on a few criminal trials. Criminals usually think it was the other guy's fault.

The guy in the store insulted me, so I had to . . . . Fill in the blank.

My wife started it. She said . . . . She shoved me. It's her own fault. She won't leave me alone.

People who carry guns expect bad things to happen to them. People carry guns because they believe they are going to be attacked.

Tiny bit of paranoia there.

Some people really are in danger -- former judges, prison guards, active military in a war zone, police officers, lots of people. They need to carry guns. Most of us don't and shouldn't.

Carry a gun and you may find yourself serving a prison term over what you would have seen as just a real bad day had you only gone out unarmed.

[X_Digger]

46. Are people with fire extinguishers paranoid / expecting fire?

This topic always fascinates me. The cognitive dissonance that one item, kept close at hand in the case of a rare but severe event is being prudent and prepared, but another item kept at hand for a similar purpose is paranoid.

[JDPriestly]

52. If you are keeping your gun at hand and really not using it, you

won't have a problem. But if you carry your gun or take it out to show it off or play with it carelessly, then you will.

The SYG laws as opposed to the castle laws presume that you are carrying a gun. And that is dangerous. Regardless of whether you have that "right" or not -- the "right" to carry your gun -- you are stupid to do it. Oh, the stories I could tell you. Sad, sad stories.

Our courts and jails are full of people who shot in self-defense, or at least that's their story.

[X_Digger]

53. SYG can be about *anything* used in self-defense, not just guns. (the same with castle doctrine).

There was another case where SYG was mentioned recently where an older guy used an ice pick on a guy who had chased him down in traffic.

Now I won't argue that a gun doesn't make a better tool for self-defense than a taser or a knife, but all are equally at play with self-defense laws.

I take my gun out to clean it at least once a month, and practice with it every couple of weeks, but I don't 'play with it carelessly' any more than checking the gauge on my fire extinguisher would be.

[JDPriestly]

45. Most violence is not objectively speaking self-defense although

most of the violent think they are acting out of self-defense.

Go and talk to some convicted criminals. Listen to their stories.

Domestic violence -- it was his/her fault.

The proportion of instances in which violence was really used in self-defense is low. And usually, there was a better alternative.

When you carry a gun, you risk killing or being killed simply because you are in a bad mood, you drank a little too much or you miscalculated the intentions or abilities of the other whom you perceive to be dangerous.

Are there times when guns are appropriate? Yes.

Are there individuals who should carry guns and are responsible and mature enough to handle them? Yes, but many who think they are aren't.

Overly liberal, overly permissive gun-carry laws don't do any favors to anyone except the gun manufacturers. Leave your gun at home for your own safety.

What percentage of people do you think carry guns?

Remember. the smaller the percentage, the less likely that your elderly mom or your young child or your disabled cousin or your underage kid will have to face a gun on a lonely street. It can still happen but the odds diminish as the percentage of those who carry is reduced.

Carrying a gun gets people into so much trouble. For example, let's say you are walking down the street and the police are looking for someone who just shot someone else and who looks very much like you. Will that gun you are carry on your belt make you more or less of a legitimate target for the officer? And do you really think your gun is going to help you in a shoot-out with a squad care of police?

Carrying a gun is, statistically speaking, a bad bet.

[gejohnston]

47. based on?

The proportion of instances in which violence was really used in self-defense is low. And usually, there was a better alternative.

Based on what?

When you carry a gun, you risk killing or being killed simply because you are in a bad mood, you drank a little too much or you miscalculated the intentions or abilities of the other whom you perceive to be dangerous.

total bullshit, google "myth of the virgin killer"

Are there individuals who should carry guns and are responsible and mature enough to handle them? Yes, but many who think they are aren't.

What qualifies you to decide which is which?

Overly liberal, overly permissive gun-carry laws don't do any favors to anyone except the gun manufacturers. Leave your gun at home for your own safety.

I feel safer in Wyoming and Vermont than DC or Chicago. I don't carry at all.

What percentage of people do you think carry guns?

few, but how is that relevant?

Remember. the smaller the percentage, the less likely that your elderly mom or your young child or your disabled cousin or your underage kid will have to face a gun on a lonely street. It can still happen but the odds diminish as the percentage of those who carry is reduced.

And of other weapons and disparity of force?

Carrying a gun gets people into so much trouble. For example, let's say you are walking down the street and the police are looking for someone who just shot someone else and who looks very much like you. Will that gun you are carry on your belt make you more or less of a legitimate target for the officer? And do you really think your gun is going to help you in a shoot-out with a squad care of police?

gun or not, the cops will pick you up anyway. Why would I get in a shoot out with the cops? Once the cops do a ballistics test, the gun would get me out of jail faster, since the odds of false ID in line ups are much higher.

Carrying a gun is, statistically speaking, a bad bet.

statistically, it is a wash.

[JDPriestly]

54. Watching in courtrooms.

Spend some time in courtrooms -- domestic violence, family law, the usual criminal courts. Just watch. It is much more visible in courtrooms in some areas of LA than in others.

I've even heard some horrendous stories in Juvenile Hall. Just volunteer. Hang out. Educate yourself.

If you live in a small town in the Midwest you may not see what I have seen.

Or, alternatively, talk to some of the emergency room doctors in big city hospitals. I think that shootings on our streets and in our homes have declined in recent years along with all violent crime, but it is still awful.

My husband points out that gun violence is much less prevalent in countries like Austria, Germany, the UK, even France and Italy (where people have a reputation for flaring tempers) even though hunting is a very popular sport. People don't carry their guns to the local beer hall or winery. They know better.

People here should know better. It is part of living in a civil society. You don't need to ban guns if people don't use them unwisely. I want a gun ban in my urban area because there is nothing to hunt here but people. My neighbor who likes to hunt should have a permit to transport his gun through the city but not to carry it around openly where he can easily reach it in the city.

These SYG laws should not exist. Of course, you have a right to self-defense. But you should simply have better sense than to carry your gun with you when you head for the 7-11 on a Friday night or when you go out on Neighborhood Watch patrol in a heavily populated area. It's common sense. Please.

[PavePusher]

55. "Of course, you have a right to self-defense."

Just not to efficient tools for it, eh? I suppose we should just use our "natural fighting skills" or some such.....

[gejohnston]

58. no, you don't see those in small towns in the mid west

or mountain west. Come to think of it, I doubt it happens in rural California or New York for that matter. Where I grew up, we had rifle club, so I took a gun to school once a week. During hunting season, there were guns in the student parking lot. No, we generally did not keep loaded guns in the house. We did not lock our doors at night either. Although open carry always was legal, no one does. Wyoming's concealed carry law back then was actually stricter than New York's. Not that it mattered, because you were either in Mayberry or the wilderness. Today if I move back to Wyoming, I doubt I would carry (even though it is now like Vermont) because, because very low violent crime. If I got a job working for Planned Parenthood, I would reconsider.

Violence in Europe was always much lower, even when it was common for them to carry before the first World War. The middle and upper classes in US cities also did until concealed carry became illegal in many states in the 1920s. Ironic thing is, it was rare in the "wild west." The reason was that people in the "wild west" felt safer. While murders are less common in Europe, the use of machine guns are more common there than here.

Or, alternatively, talk to some of the emergency room doctors in big city hospitals. I think that shootings on our streets and in our homes have declined in recent years along with all violent crime, but it is still awful.

It is awful, but still mostly gangsters killing other gangsters. Since you are using LA as an example, Reagan ended open carry in the 1960s. I doubt any of the folks you are talking about are millionaires or gave to the sheriff's campaign, they don't have concealed carry permits.
That said, it was worse before concealed carry liberalization in most states.

I want a gun ban in my urban area because there is nothing to hunt here but people. My neighbor who likes to hunt should have a permit to transport his gun through the city but not to carry it around openly where he can easily reach it in the city.

You are in LA correct? Unless he is a millionaire, celebrity, white, and gives to the sheriff's campaign, his chance of getting a carry permit in LA county is zero. Yes I am saying California's restrictive issue counties are racist and classiest. Orange and LA counties especially.

These SYG laws should not exist. Of course, you have a right to self-defense. But you should simply have better sense than to carry your gun with you when you head for the 7-11 on a Friday night or when you go out on Neighborhood Watch patrol in a heavily populated area. It's common sense. Please.

California is SYG by common law. Some people would be foolish not to carry on a Friday night or any other night. I have a county commissioner like that.

[JDPriestly]

59. I agree that gun laws should be determined locally.

I grew up in the Midwest. The deer would overrun everything if they were not hunted and eaten. My husband grew up in the mountains where everyone hunted. That's great. I love venison on the rare occasions that I can get it well cooked.

But I don't want guns in my crowded urban area. There are no animals to hunt here. (We have our squirrels and raccoons, but we cannot shoot them because the chances we would shoot a neighbor are too great.)

As for gun permits. Those who really need them can get them. I know some people who have them. It's not so rare here.

[X_Digger]

61. Any other rights that should be handled locally?

Should it be up to the Mississippi legislature as to who votes? Should the Arizona legislature be able to say which students get an education, and to what standard?

And secondly, the second amendment isn't about hunting. Only one in five gun owners hunts. I'm part of the 80% who do not hunt.

[PavePusher]

22. Criminals do not seem generally keen to take safety, self-defense and anti-crime classes.

Let us know what your proposals are.

[JDPriestly]

42. Smokers are not generally keen to give up smoking.

But presenting the cruel facts to them and making it harder for them to smoke has decreased their numbers. And lengthened a few lives. If you want to know about it check with the American Heart Association. It's a bit off-topic here, but smokers shorten their lives by about 14 years on average as I understand it.

[hack89]

29. Hope you don't have a family whose lives depend on you. nt

[Clames]

30. Hilarious.

The problem with the NRA is that they have no proposals to save lives, to discourage the wrongful use of guns.

More like:

The problem with the Brady Campaign is that they have no proposals to save lives, to discourage the wrongful use of guns.

The problem with the MAIG is that they have no proposals to save lives, to discourage the wrongful use of guns.

The problem with the Million Mom March is that they have no proposals to save lives, to discourage the wrongful use of guns.

The problem with the CSGV is that they have no proposals to save lives, to discourage the wrongful use of guns.

The problem with the VPC is that they have no proposals to save lives, to discourage the wrongful use of guns.

The problem with the LCAV is that they have no proposals to save lives, to discourage the wrongful use of guns.

[JDPriestly]

41. Brady does have a plan for saving lives.

Making it harder for your ordinary psychos to grab a very, very powerful and very, very fast-loading gun and kill lots of people with it.

[Straw Man]

48. Guess again.

The problem with the NRA is that they have no proposals to save lives, to discourage the wrongful use of guns. They seem to just want to sell guns. They educate on the use of guns. But they don't do enough to educate to discourage the misuse of guns.

The NRA courses in personal protection contain instruction on how to avoid dangerous confrontations as well as on the legal ramifications of using a firearm in self-defense. In the courses I took, we were told that shooting someone in self-defense, even when legally justified, will have a severe negative impact on one's life, entailing emotional trauma, social stigma, and potentially a civil lawsuit. It was stressed over and over that shooting is a last resort, undertaken only to save oneself from a life-threatening assault.

Pulling out your gun and shooting someone who is unarmed just because they hit you or argued or became angry with you is not acceptable.

Correct. And the SYG laws do not undermine that premise. You must have a reasonable fear that your life is in danger. The chief flaw is the subjective nature of the word "reasonable." I believe that what we will see in court cases are attempts to persuade juries that the shooter's actions were or were not "reasonable." As with most other jury decisions, community standards will prevail, for better or for worse. I personally think Zimmerman is in a whole lot of trouble, SYG law notwithstanding.

[JDPriestly]

49. The NRA should pay as much to get the message about the dangers

of carrying a gun across as it does to get the message that all qualified adults should have the right to carry a gun anywhere -- including to bars.

[AH1Apache]

51. Why should my money go towards that?

The NRA is an advocate for the 2A, if you want that message, go join the VPC or the Brady Bunch, they really need the money and membership.
BTW, the NRA has a pretty damn good safety program.

[JDPriestly]

56. Your money should go toward that so that people like me who are on the fence,

who like eating game when someone else shoots it, who understand that guns are great for hunting, don't feel like guns should be completely banned because they are so often used to hunt humans not animals, for aggression and not real self-protection (and by real self-protection, I mean use by the National Guard or the military or your local police, not by well-meaning amateurs).

[Straw Man]

57. Please clarify.

(and by real self-protection, I mean use by the National Guard or the military or your local police, not by well-meaning amateurs)

So if my life is threatened, I should not defend myself? Because I'm a "well-meaning amateur" and not a policeman, I should just lie down and die?

[JDPriestly]

60. In my view, you should be able to defend yourself anywhere but not with a gun.

And you should be able to defend your own home with a gun. I think that local law should determine where and when guns can be carried. In Los Angeles, I support a law that would permit carrying a gun only for those with a license to do so. We have a police force. We don't need to carry our own guns. The population here is too large to justify permitting people to carry weapons while they walk down the street or when they are going shopping or to church or to a bar. It just isn't safe here. It isn't necessary either since the fire department and the local police are pretty ubiquitous. The helicopters are overhead all the time. All you have to do is call 911, and someone is watching. In fact they watch all too much and too often. The noise is unbearable at times.

Another good reason why guns should not be carried freely in a huge city like Los Angeles -- it would imperil the police.

[Straw Man]

62. I see several problems.

The first is your assumption that there are enough police to ensure anyone's safety at all times. There aren't. The second is that this would be desirable even if it were possible. A cop on every corner watching everyone all the time is a police state: security at the expense of privacy. You yourself admit as much.

Ultimately, though, I see as the biggest problem the notion that the police are some kind of magical heroes whose skills, judgment, and ethics are superior to yours and mine. I know a lot of cops. I have taken firearms classes with cops. For the most part they are fine people, but I don't see most of them as better suited to guard me than I am to guard myself.

The police are there to facilitate the collective security of society. They are neither capable of nor legally liable for the protection of each individual citizen.

[JDPriestly]

50. Well, we shall have to wait to learn what the evidence shows,

but I think Zimmerman's case will be something of a cold shower for bullies who think they will be able to hide behind the SYG laws.

[msongs]

2. after all, guns were invented for one purpose: killing people nt

[saras]

4. They push it because it makes money.Sell guns to crazies, sell 'em to the sane to protect themselves

I suspect there's no more to it than that - a positive feedback loop between manufacturers and a user organization. Ultimately they'd prefer that law-abiding citizens only buy new guns on a monthly basis, but that's a pretty hard sell, and they have no way to sort gun buyers by sanity. You sell 'em to who buys 'em, and you serve your market.

[pipoman]

7. Yeah, and with .006% of guns in the US used in murders, we should outlaw them

and any other item which .006% is misused, huh?

[Tunkamerica]

8. wait... .006% of guns? what's the percentage of murders committed with guns?

In 2006, firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 42 percent of robbery offenses and 22 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/

ridiculous statistic. If I own 1000 guns and only use one to kill someone what percentage of my guns committed that murder? .01%?

What about the percentage of bullets used to commit murders? I bet that's ridiculously low. It's not like people own more than one round or more than one gun.

[GreydeeThos]

9. There are 300,000,000 known guns owned by private citizens in the United States

How many of those guns are used improperly?

[Tunkamerica]

10. why is that a relevant statistic? I think the more relevant stat is the one where the activity

we are against is committed by the object in question.

To imply that the number of total objects in the country is more important is to say that creating more guns would make the murders committed with guns less important.

If only everyone had more guns! Then the murders committed with them would seem less important by virtue of a nonsensical statistic.

[Tunkamerica]

11. Also, you just made the previous poster's point again. That doesn't get you extra

troll points.

[ileus]

17. all of them....any gunner baser is a toter wannabe zimmerman.

yeah...all that and then some.

hidden criminals.....yadda yadda yadda....

almost forgot "Guns kill people"

[Tunkamerica]

18. way to respond to someone who shares your view

just looking at your history it's 999/1000 gun threads so why not respond to the actual questions with your advanced familiarity?

I'll admit right off that I only know the guns my dad, uncle, and granddad had around. I own none myself mainly due to the fact that nothing I own is worth killing anyone for.

Does selling more guns to "law abiding citizens" make criminals less likely to have their own guns? Does the fact that we have more guns than people make gun deaths or even murders in general less likely in the US?

[pipoman]

21. 'gun crime and gun murders'

are simply classifications by gun control advocates to avoid the question of whether the presence of guns effects actual crime and/or murder rates. Can you show any examples of countries, states, or cities enacting gun control which actually had any measurable effect on crime rates or murder rates? I know of no example of the many available. "gun crime and gun murder" rates alone don't count...it is no different than outlawing red cars effecting the red car accident rate, but would it effect the actual accident rate?

[beevul]

28. Are you certain...

"I own none myself mainly due to the fact that nothing I own is worth killing anyone for."

Are you certain, that the reverse is also true?

That nobody among the criminal population thinks anything you have is worth killing you for?

[WinniSkipper]

44. Of course he/she is

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/BREAKING-Homeowner-shot-killed-during-burglary/-/1719418/10324926/-/p3ax92/-/index.html

[X_Digger]

40. And 0.4% of gun owners.

There are some 350,000 crimes committed with guns (both fatal and non-fatal).

There are 80,000,000 gun owners.

99.6% of gun owners are *not* involved with violent crime using a gun.

[mvccd1000]

6. You actually feel...

... that if you are in your home, or even in a public place where you have a right to be, and someone begins to assault you, that you should be required to either submit or run away?

That the force of law should be on the side of the criminal, and you should be arrested if you resist?

That's a strangely backward world view, but it goes a long way toward explaining why some people feel so empowered to commit such crimes.

[Becka2515]

12. I agree with you

Its crazy talk from the anti's

[Tunkamerica]

15. in the context of this debate the victim was in a public space where he had a right to be and

was shot to death. Do you believe that the killer has some divine "get out of jail free" card because he used a gun?

I don't expect an honest answer only because if the races and armament were reversed I doubt you'd reverse your stance.

[mvccd1000]

19. Absolutely not

As I've stated in one of the many other threads on the Martin/Zimmerman altercation, IF the facts come out to be what the media has so far reported, I don't see where the SYG statutes could apply to this situation. I don't believe there is any protection under the statute for someone who basically created an incident and then escalated it unnecessarily.

Unfortunately, with all of the "selective editing" and other slanted reporting we've seen so far, nobody seems to know all of the facts. One fact I think we can all agree on, however, is that this situation never had to happen. With no imminent danger, there was no reason for Zimmerman to do anything other than call the cops and leave it alone. They get paid to deal with those things.

As far as your interesting racial comment, you'll find that one of my recent posts was of a homeowner shooting an intruder. While I don't know (or at least don't remember) the race of the intruder, the picture of the homeowner clearly showed him to be black. Apparently race does not factor into my consideration as much as it does yours.

[Tunkamerica]

20. but to claim "selective editing" and then "slanted reporting" then taking the side of the shooter

speaks more to a slant towards the better armed.

Perhaps the killer's race isn't important to you and only the weapon involved.

Sorry to mischaracterize you.

[PavePusher]

23. No-one here has "taken the side of the shooter".

Many have taken the side of due process of law, and not making judgements on 'facts" altered to make a good story by the MSM.

[Tunkamerica]

24. "okay" i "guess" i was "wrong"

[PavePusher]

26. Yes, "you" were. n/t

[Callisto32]

34. ......wow.

[mvccd1000]

39. Understandable

I didn't claim selective editing to side with the shooter... I claimed it because many of the headlines I've seen in the last week were reports showing exactly how much the media distorted the story. The selective editing has made as much news this week as the shooting has.

All of that has me leery of blindly accepting the facts as reported. While I do give some weight to the reports that have come out, I also give some weight to the fact that the police who investigated decided not to keep him in jail. Obviously if they had been in possession of the same facts NBC gave us, they'd already have thrown away the key.

None of that changes the fact that I don't believe the incident should have happened, though. Zimmerman was out of line in confronting Martin. I don't see how a SYG law can apply in this case.

[Doctor_J]

27. Which has what to do with George Zimmerman?

[gejohnston]

31. if MSM and conventional wisdom is correct

Dionne and Bloomburg are saying that it would be barbaric for Martin to defend himself from Zimmerman. That is if they are being logically consistent and honest, but we are talking about a pundit and a politician.

[Doctor_J]

33. Cite?

it would be barbaric for Martin to defend himself from Zimmerman

Can you point me to that quote from Mike, EJ, or anyone else? Maybe it's because I only read the left-wing media, but I haven't seen this stated anywhere.

[gejohnston]

36. reverse the situation

If Martin killed Zimmerman in self defense, by "standing his ground" (and maybe that was what Martin was trying to do, defend himself) then Bloomburg would have to say the same of Martin. Has nothing to do with ideology, just thinking.

A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

In the criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.

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

[Doctor_J]

37. This is usually called a Straw Man

If Martin killed Zimmerman in self defense, by "standing his ground" (and maybe that was what Martin was trying to do, defend himself) then Bloomburg would have to say the same of Martin.

he wouldn't have to say anything. The post to which I responded contained the phrase "Bloomberg and Dionne are saying it would be barbaric for Martin to defend himself". They are saying no such thing, and I haven't seen anyone make such a statement.

[gejohnston]

38. I don't think so

They are saying SYG is barbaric in principle. That is how I interpret what they said.

[ileus]

13. We should all push SYG...

[Tunkamerica]

16. i think it's getting pushed right now.

[Hoyt]

25. He's exactly right. Gun carriers love these laws because they can screw up and shoot an unarmed

teenager, and claim self-defense. Yea, small chance they'll get prosecuted. But as long as they are a member of the good ole boy gun culture, chances are much less they'll be prosecuted unless people raise heck as happened in Florida.

[Doctor_J]

32. Screw up?

You're being too kind. They can "play cowboy", shoot an unarmed teenager, and claim self-defense.

[AH1Apache]

35. They can "play cowboy" and claim self-defense all they want

but a good investigation will more than likely reveal what really happened.
Oh, BTW, Ole E.J. Dionne is a fucking idiot when it comes to gun issues. He really has no fucking clue about what he is talking about.