Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
Really? People are flat out arguing against the appropriatness of his self-defence argument. A lot of this is racially based. The ironic part is that if you strengthen gun laws or weaken self-defence defences, then you expose the lowest socio-economic classes to more convictions. It's people in lower socio-economic classes who are more likely to be involved in violent crime and more likely to carry guns.
Once you change a law, you have to apply it consistently. You cannot pick and choose when it applies.
Essentially, by changing these laws, you'd be sacrificing larger parts of the black and other disadvantaged communities to posthumously respect Trayvon Martin.
|
Sacrificing how? By removing guns from the streets, guns which are often responsible for the inflated murder rates in those communities, and going after the same gun crime? I'll take that sacrifice.
I can't speak for others, but I'm not arguing against the appropriateness of his self defense argument, apparently he convinced the jury his fear was reasonable along with his response. What I'm arguing for is something that would shift the burden of proving that reasonableness onto someone who elects to carry a concealed weapon.