General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Eloquent stomping of a dumbass wrong pro-gun message that went viral [View all]kevinbgoode1
(153 posts)ground" laws. The proponents often base their reasoning on hypothetical situations in which they attempt to assure the rest of the populace that all citizens have this instinct to pack heat and pull it at any moment's notice to "protect" or "apprehend" someone they have decided is a "criminal." Well, everyone knows already that everyone else is a "law abiding, responsible citizen" until they decide NOT to be one, and I was always concerned these laws were proposed as more of a cover for murdering other citizens based only on potentially skewed perceptions of the actions of another.
I suspect there are too many cases in which people shoot to kill as soon as they feel "threatened" - which (as we saw in the pizza place incident a few days ago) seems more like someone with a weapon playing out some Hollywood fantasy. I've read accounts of people merely approaching strangers to ask for assistance with jumper cables only to have the over protective, actively imaginative respondent push a coat aside to reveal his "defensive" weaponry.
As someone who is familiar with how many times straight men were allowed to use the "gay panic" defense when murdering a gay American because of perceptions that the other guy was "hitting on me" I have a tendency not to trust most people who talk a lot about their fantasies about killing others who they perceive are "threatening." Too many in the past have done just that and hauled those excuses right into a courtroom, often successfully, as if their right to snuff out another life is justified because of their perceptions, and the victim has no such right to life. In other words, I often get the feeling that someone's right to live is, in their minds, completely dependent on whether an armed person decides they don't feel threatened by anyone else that day.