|
|
Post by christrpn on Jul 14, 2013 7:32:08 GMT -5
Any one else feel like Justice wasn't handed out here. I followed the story when it happened, thought it was a simple case, I must have missed something. Any insight on what really happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 14, 2013 10:22:51 GMT -5
no middle ground here. either you think Zimmerman was a poor white guy merely protecting himself from an evil young thug, or Martin was a poor black kid killed by a vigilante.
I think . . . it doesn't matter what I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by christrpn on Jul 14, 2013 11:00:12 GMT -5
I don't believe this is race related, being that Zimmerman isn't white. He shot an unarmed minor, point blank. I guess there has to be more to the story than I first read.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 14, 2013 12:25:33 GMT -5
I stand corrected.
Still, it's nice guy v punk, or vigilante v innocent young guy.
Whatever, the culture of fear persists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 14, 2013 14:58:20 GMT -5
This was never about race, no matter how hard the race baiters and profiteers wanted to sell it as such.
To me, this was simply a case of the righteousness of self defense. Did the Person 1 feel his life was at risk to shoot Person 2. It doesn't matter is there was abysmal lack of common sense for either of them, did one believe that his life was at stake and that he had to draw a gun. Sure, there are a dozen reasons why it should not of gone so far, but the final moment is all that counts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 14, 2013 15:03:53 GMT -5
I don't believe this is race related, being that Zimmerman isn't white. He shot an unarmed minor, point blank. I guess there has to be more to the story than I first read. There is and there isn't. Although if you are not that familiar, good luck. You will wade through a ton of race slanted articles to come out to the truth. I'm pro gun and to me, it's very simple matter of "righteous use of a gun". Note, I'm not saying that using a gun is "righteous", I'm saying if the use of was warranted. Perhaps I should say "warranted use of a deadly weapon". |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 14, 2013 15:17:42 GMT -5
It has become race-related...no question.
Both the "Reverends" are headed down there. Sharpton and Jackson. I would presume their purpose is to calm the waters?
|
|
|
|
Post by christrpn on Jul 14, 2013 20:07:46 GMT -5
I don't believe this is race related, being that Zimmerman isn't white. He shot an unarmed minor, point blank. I guess there has to be more to the story than I first read. There is and there isn't. Although if you are not that familiar, good luck. You will wade through a ton of race slanted articles to come out to the truth. I'm pro gun and to me, it's very simple matter of "righteous use of a gun". Note, I'm not saying that using a gun is "righteous", I'm saying if the use of was warranted. Perhaps I should say "warranted use of a deadly weapon". I am neither pro or anti gun. I can see the benefit of having one, but I also see the dangers. There is a time and a place to use it, on the street on an unarmed minor is neither the time or the place. Did they find any weapon at all on Martin? I believe, and this is just my opinion, the act was unjustified. Looking at the accused and the victim, I can't see any threat to the accused life other than another weapon. Make it gang related, the one that lives goes to jail, self defense or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 14, 2013 22:19:24 GMT -5
Not guilty!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 15, 2013 1:39:51 GMT -5
There is and there isn't. Although if you are not that familiar, good luck. You will wade through a ton of race slanted articles to come out to the truth. I'm pro gun and to me, it's very simple matter of "righteous use of a gun". Note, I'm not saying that using a gun is "righteous", I'm saying if the use of was warranted. Perhaps I should say "warranted use of a deadly weapon". I am neither pro or anti gun. I can see the benefit of having one, but I also see the dangers. There is a time and a place to use it, on the street on an unarmed minor is neither the time or the place. Did they find any weapon at all on Martin? I believe, and this is just my opinion, the act was unjustified. Looking at the accused and the victim, I can't see any threat to the accused life other than another weapon. Make it gang related, the one that lives goes to jail, self defense or not. I am a pro-gun person, but I don't advocate carry. I don't think that normal people can make the decision on when to use deadly force. Plus, the vast majority of people in the US who carry simply do not have the gun training to use it properly. As for the "minor" part. In age, yes, but not in size. And yes, getting ones head bashed on cement is pretty good grounds to draw. The jury thought so. In a better world, none of this would happen. It was a sequence of really, really stupid decisions by both parties that ended in tragedy. If that was not enough, then to add all the race baiting industry on top was even worse. To me, it was not much of anything other then a tragedy, but then, the race thing made any discussion of it in any term other then racism into an accusation of "you are a racist". I'm not much of a fan of that guilt trip. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 15, 2013 2:19:32 GMT -5
I am a pro-gun person, but I don't advocate carry. I don't think that normal people can make the decision on when to use deadly force. Plus, the vast majority of people in the US who carry simply do not have the gun training to use it properly. As for the "minor" part. In age, yes, but not in size. And yes, getting ones head bashed on cement is pretty good grounds to draw. The jury thought so. In a better world, none of this would happen. It was a sequence of really, really stupid decisions by both parties that ended in tragedy. If that was not enough, then to add all the race baiting industry on top was even worse. To me, it was not much of anything other then a tragedy, but then, the race thing made any discussion of it in any term other then racism into an accusation of "you are a racist". I'm not much of a fan of that guilt trip. well put. if Zimmerman had walked away as instructed when he called 911 Taylor would still be alive. if Taylor had walked the other direction he would still be alive. ego and rights seem to trump common sense every time. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 24, 2013 13:24:45 GMT -5
Speaking in pure legal terms, I can't believe this went to trial .... there were no witnesses, a "he said - he said" trial automatically raises reasonable doubt. Who do you believe?
Speaking from a moral/ethical/(call it racial if you will) point of view, I see exactly why this went to trial. The "Stand your ground" law is completely flawed. It is suppose to be available only when you find yourself in a threatening situation, but now it is being applied in situations where you PUT yourself in threatening situations or provoke the other party. Who stalked who? I dont really care. What was Zimmerman planning to do, now there is the question. I have no idea how the parties came to blows, how Trayvon Martin found himself ontop of George Zimmerman banging his head on cement, ... but for someone who carried a gun, and was head of the neighbourhood watch, he sure protrayed himself to be a "weakling pansy" in the trial. It's been my experience that community leaders like that, are usually the strong personality, alpha types.
Now for the race card ... I don't think the trial was about race. The jurors have indicated that race was never discussed. (Personally, I don't think race should have been discussed either). But the RESULT is certainly racial. There is enough precedents to show, that if Trayvon Martin was white and George Zimmerman black, the stand your ground defense would likely have failed. This is why race is being brought into it, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 24, 2013 18:27:38 GMT -5
Speaking in pure legal terms, I can't believe this went to trial .... there were no witnesses, a "he said - he said" trial automatically raises reasonable doubt. Who do you believe? Speaking from a moral/ethical/(call it racial if you will) point of view, I see exactly why this went to trial. The "Stand your ground" law is completely flawed. It is suppose to be available only when you find yourself in a threatening situation, but now it is being applied in situations where you PUT yourself in threatening situations or provoke the other party. Who stalked who? I dont really care. What was Zimmerman planning to do, now there is the question. I have no idea how the parties came to blows, how Trayvon Martin found himself ontop of George Zimmerman banging his head on cement, ... but for someone who carried a gun, and was head of the neighbourhood watch, he sure protrayed himself to be a "weakling pansy" in the trial. It's been my experience that community leaders like that, are usually the strong personality, alpha types. Now for the race card ... I don't think the trial was about race. The jurors have indicated that race was never discussed. (Personally, I don't think race should have been discussed either). But the RESULT is certainly racial. There is enough precedents to show, that if Trayvon Martin was white and George Zimmerman black, the stand your ground defense would likely have failed. This is why race is being brought into it, IMO. The incident wasn't racially motivated but the reporting and after effects are. It appears understandable for inner city youth to riot, jump on cars, destroy property, intimidate bystanders and attack innocent citizens. It should be OK for innocent citizens to carry weapons for protection, to stand their ground and defend themselves. If a police officer encounters two people in a Walmart parking lot, a small frail seventy year old well dressed white woman tugging on the strap of a purse and a young male, black man in a hoodie pulling on the other strap, it is unreasonable not to profile the situation and act quickly to protect both parties. It may later be discovered that the woman was confused and the boy went to the car to retrieve his mothers purse that she forgot to bring in to the store, but when quick action is required the officer assesses the situation and reacts with discrimination against age, color, and sex. Profiling is not necessarily bad. How many white youths have been killed by black attackers without comment from the President? Bergereon is profiling for big, tough, gritty, francophones and may have missed out on a skilled little defenseman named Subban. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 24, 2013 21:26:54 GMT -5
Except, in this case ...it was a 190 lbs , 30yr old white man .....and a 17yr old, 160 lb , "A" student, black male
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 24, 2013 21:37:11 GMT -5
Except, in this case ...it was a 190 lbs , 30yr old white man .....and a 17yr old, 160 lb , "A" student, black male Quick! It's 11:30 pm, dark, you feel threatened, you are struck and on the ground and you have to react immediately. You don't have the luxury of listening to testimony over three weeks and make a considered decision. One thing about guns is they are levelers. It makes a 190 lb and a 160 pound equal in self defense. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 25, 2013 2:04:13 GMT -5
Except, in this case ...it was a 190 lbs , 30yr old white man .....and a 17yr old, 160 lb , "A" student, black male Quick! It's 11:30 pm, dark, you feel threatened, you are struck and on the ground and you have to react immediately. You don't have the luxury of listening to testimony over three weeks and make a considered decision. One thing about guns is they are levelers. It makes a 190 lb and a 160 pound equal in self defense. Quick! It's 11:30 pm, dark, you have just called 911 and had the luxury of listening to someone tell you to just leave the scene and not cause a confrontation. you to react immediately and make a considered decision not to. after all you have one of those great levelers. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jul 25, 2013 6:16:08 GMT -5
Except, in this case ...it was a 190 lbs , 30yr old white man .....and a 17yr old, 160 lb , "A" student, black male Quick! It's 11:30 pm, dark, you feel threatened, you are struck and on the ground and you have to react immediately. You don't have the luxury of listening to testimony over three weeks and make a considered decision. One thing about guns is they are levelers. It makes a 190 lb and a 160 pound equal in self defense. This timeline confirms what I thought I heard - that this incident took place much earlier - at 7:30PM. It makes a big difference over your assumption that it was much later. Please make an effort to get these important facts correct. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 25, 2013 22:41:56 GMT -5
Speaking in pure legal terms, I can't believe this went to trial .... there were no witnesses, a "he said - he said" trial automatically raises reasonable doubt. Who do you believe? That's pretty much all there is to it, IMO. Everything else is moot: there's no way that there isn't reasonable doubt in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 26, 2013 10:29:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 26, 2013 12:13:36 GMT -5
160 to 190 pounds is NOT, absolutely NOT that much of a difference in weight in a street fight. Then if you add the even the slightest element of surprise, it's not only ZERO, it favours the one doing the surprise.
I took martial arts for four years religiously and then beyond. Every advance was measured by winning fights. The "weight" classes was someone within 50 pounds of you. Those wins and losses were distributed within the "weight" class.
Cripes, some think that street fight is a lard butt chest sitting contest where the biggest butt wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 26, 2013 12:25:55 GMT -5
Speaking in pure legal terms, I can't believe this went to trial .... there were no witnesses, a "he said - he said" trial automatically raises reasonable doubt. Who do you believe? That's pretty much all there is to it, IMO. Everything else is moot: there's no way that there isn't reasonable doubt in this case. Both of those statements are turned into illogical, irrelevant race based counter arguments by some. Complete with pictures of a 14 year old. The stupidity of the tragedy is one thing, to flame racial based anger is another thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 26, 2013 15:24:57 GMT -5
160 to 190 pounds is NOT, absolutely NOT that much of a difference in weight in a street fight. Then if you add the even the slightest element of surprise, it's not only ZERO, it favours the one doing the surprise. I took martial arts for four years religiously and then beyond. Every advance was measured by winning fights. The "weight" classes was someone within 50 pounds of you. Those wins and losses were distributed within the "weight" class. Cripes, some think that street fight is a lard butt chest sitting contest where the biggest butt wins. The analogy raised was a frail old lady vs a young thug .... I pointed out what the facts were, to show that Zimmerman was far from a frail old lady. Yet, that's exactly how his defense team portrayed him. Then the week after he is acquitted, frail ol Zimmerman, pulled a family of four from a burning car. Can't push a 17 yr old off him though? Don't get me wrong. I agree with the verdict. No evidence, no witnesses, the prosecutors were reckless in going to trail, cause now, if evidence does surface they can't do anything. But the way they portrayed Zimmerman as a weakling and Martin as a thug is laughable .... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 26, 2013 22:25:12 GMT -5
The analogy raised was a frail old lady vs a young thug .... I pointed out what the facts were, to show that Zimmerman was far from a frail old lady. Yet, that's exactly how his defense team portrayed him. Then the week after he is acquitted, frail ol Zimmerman, pulled a family of four from a burning car. Can't push a 17 yr old off him though? I'm not arguing otherwise. Neither frail old lady or a "just a boy". If anything, I would say they would be pretty evenly matched or slight advantage to Zimmerman. On the other hand, given any element of surprise and first injury, well, the rest is history. What I don't understand (and we will never know) is that if Zimmerman warned Martin that he was carrying. The entire purpose of carry is deterrence....and pray that one never has to draw. On the other hand, if there was no verbal exchange and surprise, well......] ~~~~~~~~~~~ Years ago, maybe a decade back, during mid evening, I turned down the block and just before I reached my house, I saw a shadow behind my tree. I pulled up to my driveway, went over to investigate and lo and behold, there was a man there. As I went around the tree, he kept going the other way. I warned him, he came out, and well....he was slow, retarded, whatever the "right term" is these days. I called the cops, followed him for a several hundred feet from a distance and the cops eventually came. So......let's say he was a peeping tom and full control of his faculties, am I suppose to leave him alone so he could disappear into my neighbors houses? What if he was a rapist? It's almost the same scenario but also different in one way since this guy was playing hide and seek behind my tree, on my property, clearly over the line of "normal". But what if he turned around and attacked me? Or disappeared into one of the backwards and then came behind me and assaulted me? What if he was black? What if I flipped him and he hit his head on the concrete and died? What if he surprised me, dazed/hurt me badly with a rock/lumber and I carried? Thankfully nothing happened..... |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 27, 2013 1:00:35 GMT -5
The analogy raised was a frail old lady vs a young thug .... I pointed out what the facts were, to show that Zimmerman was far from a frail old lady. Yet, that's exactly how his defense team portrayed him. Then the week after he is acquitted, frail ol Zimmerman, pulled a family of four from a burning car. Can't push a 17 yr old off him though? I'm not arguing otherwise. Neither frail old lady or a "just a boy". If anything, I would say they would be pretty evenly matched or slight advantage to Zimmerman. On the other hand, given any element of surprise and first injury, well, the rest is history. What I don't understand (and we will never know) is that if Zimmerman warned Martin that he was carrying. The entire purpose of carry is deterrence....and pray that one never has to draw. On the other hand, if there was no verbal exchange and surprise, well......] ~~~~~~~~~~~ Years ago, maybe a decade back, during mid evening, I turned down the block and just before I reached my house, I saw a shadow behind my tree. I pulled up to my driveway, went over to investigate and lo and behold, there was a man there. As I went around the tree, he kept going the other way. I warned him, he came out, and well....he was slow, retarded, whatever the "right term" is these days. I called the cops, followed him for a several hundred feet from a distance and the cops eventually came. So......let's say he was a peeping tom and full control of his faculties, am I suppose to leave him alone so he could disappear into my neighbors houses? What if he was a rapist? It's almost the same scenario but also different in one way since this guy was playing hide and seek behind my tree, on my property, clearly over the line of "normal". But what if he turned around and attacked me? Or disappeared into one of the backwards and then came behind me and assaulted me? What if he was black? What if I flipped him and he hit his head on the concrete and died? What if he surprised me, dazed/hurt me badly with a rock/lumber and I carried? Thankfully nothing happened..... When you take the training for a concealed carry permit you are taught to never draw your gun unless you intend to use it. Never shoot to injure. You must shoot to kill and shoot several shots into the assailant to demonstrate that you were in fear for your life and not brandishing the weapon to threaten. Zimmerman did exactly the right thing! I experienced the riots in Los Angeles and only felt safe when I was armed. I have no desire to shoot anyone unless it is for my protection or that of my family. Armed robberies take place In a 7/11 in Los Angeles every day. Criminals will not give up their guns. Legally armed citizens should NOT be forced to give up their protection. We rely on the fire department to protect our homes from fire but we still rely on fire extinguishers until the firemen arrive. We rely on the police for protection but still need guns until the police arrive. If someone is on top of me pounding my head into the ground, I know what I would do. It doesn't matter if it is 8:30 or 11 pm. It doesn't matter if the assailant is white or black. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 27, 2013 12:57:45 GMT -5
Hmmmm.......I just saw this. Ignore the obvious right wing bent, but there are several things in there that I didn't know.
I often rail that news is slanted to such a degree and unless you already know the agenda of the media, you wont see it. Case in point was that last night, the CBC had a story on Herb Gray. It painted him in a bad light as he well deserves to be painted. However, one thing you NEVER heard is ANY political background. Not once did you hear "Liberal" in the entire 6 minute segment. But even one nano second of coverage of Mike Duffy, every second word is either "Conservative" or "Harper". This is not an accident, this is a deliberate attempt to shape the news to fit a narrative. It happens over and over again on an entire range of subjects that coincides with political bent that it makes a mockery of the word "journalism". This is nothing more then political hucksterim disguised as news.
As for the video, like I said in the beginning, ignore the bent because we KNOW it's bent. Unlike the CBC and Toronto Pravda Star, it does not try to hide it as "journalism".
Drank/Lean? Never heard of it until five minutes ago. Nor anything about mixed martial arts. Stolen jewelry? Suspensions? Where are those tiny little damning facts in any of the media? All I saw repeatedly is photos of an "innocent child" taken 4 years earlier.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 27, 2013 18:09:17 GMT -5
I'm not arguing otherwise. Neither frail old lady or a "just a boy". If anything, I would say they would be pretty evenly matched or slight advantage to Zimmerman. On the other hand, given any element of surprise and first injury, well, the rest is history. What I don't understand (and we will never know) is that if Zimmerman warned Martin that he was carrying. The entire purpose of carry is deterrence....and pray that one never has to draw. On the other hand, if there was no verbal exchange and surprise, well......] ~~~~~~~~~~~ Years ago, maybe a decade back, during mid evening, I turned down the block and just before I reached my house, I saw a shadow behind my tree. I pulled up to my driveway, went over to investigate and lo and behold, there was a man there. As I went around the tree, he kept going the other way. I warned him, he came out, and well....he was slow, retarded, whatever the "right term" is these days. I called the cops, followed him for a several hundred feet from a distance and the cops eventually came. So......let's say he was a peeping tom and full control of his faculties, am I suppose to leave him alone so he could disappear into my neighbors houses? What if he was a rapist? It's almost the same scenario but also different in one way since this guy was playing hide and seek behind my tree, on my property, clearly over the line of "normal". But what if he turned around and attacked me? Or disappeared into one of the backwards and then came behind me and assaulted me? What if he was black? What if I flipped him and he hit his head on the concrete and died? What if he surprised me, dazed/hurt me badly with a rock/lumber and I carried? Thankfully nothing happened..... When you take the training for a concealed carry permit you are taught to never draw your gun unless you intend to use it. Never shoot to injure. You must shoot to kill and shoot several shots into the assailant to demonstrate that you were in fear for your life and not brandishing the weapon to threaten. Zimmerman did exactly the right thing! I experienced the riots in Los Angeles and only felt safe when I was armed. I have no desire to shoot anyone unless it is for my protection or that of my family. Armed robberies take place In a 7/11 in Los Angeles every day. Criminals will not give up their guns. Legally armed citizens should NOT be forced to give up their protection. We rely on the fire department to protect our homes from fire but we still rely on fire extinguishers until the firemen arrive. We rely on the police for protection but still need guns until the police arrive. If someone is on top of me pounding my head into the ground, I know what I would do. It doesn't matter if it is 8:30 or 11 pm. It doesn't matter if the assailant is white or black. There are so many things wrong with this .... But it shows perfectly why I'm against concealed weapons. "you must shoot to kill ...". That is in fact against the law in Canada, it's called undue force, you only use enough force to get yourself out of the situation you are in ... Sometimes it does call to kill, but not 100% of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 27, 2013 21:09:29 GMT -5
When you take the training for a concealed carry permit you are taught to never draw your gun unless you intend to use it. Never shoot to injure. You must shoot to kill and shoot several shots into the assailant to demonstrate that you were in fear for your life and not brandishing the weapon to threaten. Zimmerman did exactly the right thing! I experienced the riots in Los Angeles and only felt safe when I was armed. I have no desire to shoot anyone unless it is for my protection or that of my family. Armed robberies take place In a 7/11 in Los Angeles every day. Criminals will not give up their guns. Legally armed citizens should NOT be forced to give up their protection. We rely on the fire department to protect our homes from fire but we still rely on fire extinguishers until the firemen arrive. We rely on the police for protection but still need guns until the police arrive. If someone is on top of me pounding my head into the ground, I know what I would do. It doesn't matter if it is 8:30 or 11 pm. It doesn't matter if the assailant is white or black. There are so many things wrong with this .... But it shows perfectly why I'm against concealed weapons. "you must shoot to kill ...". That is in fact against the law in Canada, it's called undue force, you only use enough force to get yourself out of the situation you are in ... Sometimes it does call to kill, but not 100% of the time. Philosophically I agree with you. Pragmatically, we are not empowered to carry guns to enforce the law, to brandish weapons to influence or intimidate. We are permitted to carry guns, ONLY for self defense. We are only permitted to use our guns to defende ourselves when our life is believed to be in danger. If our life is truly in danger, we must act to protect ourself. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 28, 2013 9:23:54 GMT -5
While life-at-risk situations will always arise due to societal problems, criminal elements, fanatical affiliations, and mental illnesses...the "carrying" culture also produces a growing pressure and paranoia of its own. People always suspicious....on the lookout with itchy trigger fingers.
Not saying it's the case with Martin-Zimmerman at all...but innocent people do die as a result. Accepted collateral damage because of a necessary evil, I suppose. Don't throw out the bullets with the bath water, even it's blood red.
Ah, higher primates...
I'm all for the Second Amendment....but what a mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 28, 2013 11:58:44 GMT -5
While life-at-risk situations will always arise due to societal problems, criminal elements, fanatical affiliations, and mental illnesses...the "carrying" culture also produces a growing pressure and paranoia of its own. People always suspicious....on the lookout with itchy trigger fingers. In the early 2000's, I stored my product in Paterson NJ, let me put it this way, I had a flat there late in the evening and changed the tire so fast, NASCAR almost called me to know my secret. It was called FEAR. I'm not exactly a shrinking violate nor incapable, but those several minutes was shear, unadaultered fear. Nothing like it anywhere in Canada or a any country I traveled too. Not even in head busting violent riots of Greece. It was well founded the fear that at any second, someone would kill me for nothing more then shoe laces. After that night, let's just say I purchased something that subsided the fear. Much like having a full table and commenting on hunger, we are commenting on people who are living in an elevated state of violence and fear. EDIT: I didn't know it at the time, but I got rents of 50 cents a square foot. I looked at it when I came off the highway during the day, but never knew what it was like at night. Near there was an old GE factory, maybe two blocks long, two blocks wide and several stories high going for a dollar. Gee, I wonder why? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 28, 2013 13:10:56 GMT -5
For sure in the danger areas, HA. Walking into the jungle without protection....understood.
I'm talking more about small town USA. There are towns with open-carry laws. Walking around your downtown 7-11 with a visible firearm. There's been a shooting in a neighbouring town...everybody's on edge....and somebody drops a can of soda. Or a car backfires in the lot. What's the reaction? 8 people draw their guns in self-defense mode.
I can see that scenario playing out...if it hasn't already.
Like I said, a necessary downside, perhaps.....
|
|
