TexasCHLforum.com

gdanaher

I know some of you aren't regular readers of the Wall Street Journal, but here is a short must read for y'all. Yes, it's related to the topic.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... hp_opinion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gdanaher

ScooterSissy wrote:I don't think following a stranger makes CHL owner's "look bad". Further, it's not his job to make us look good.

Many gun haters have developed a negative stereotypical view of anyone who holds a CHL in whatever form the state permits. It takes enormous effort to convert those folks to our side yet very little to reconfirm their negative view. They are vocal and carry much political clout. It may not be Zimmerman's job to make us look good, but he could have avoided making himself look so bad.

gdanaher

I haven't seen what time of the evening this all occurred, and what day of the week. Perhaps unimportant, but an observer might take note of a high school kid out at 3 am on Tuesday whereas think nothing of it at 11 pm on Friday, and it might bear upon his inclination to think that something was about to happen. Secondly, how much time elapsed between Zimmerman's 911 call when he was asked not to follow, and the time the police arrived? Zimmerman may have sat there for quite some time before getting out of the vehicle. Perhaps the police gave the call a very low priority until the switchboard lit up with the calls from the neighbors?

gdanaher

Try to stay focused. It was an allegory.

gdanaher

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... ghts-punch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gdanaher

74novaman wrote:
I think his participation in a Neighborhood Watch program is exactly what is leading people to paint him as a "wanna be cop".

Now it doesn't matter at all legally (if he was indeed "not on watch" when he confronted Martin) that he is a NW member, but its part of what has helped drag him through the court of pubic opinion with a guilty sign hung around his neck.

It'll be interesting when it all shakes out who said and initiated what (if we ever learn the facts...which I'm doubtful of at this point. Already too much of a circus for facts to be important to most people).

Wow, I agree with you. Scary.

But in some industries, a higher level of training implies a higher responsibility. Example: if someone untrained in CPR cracks a few ribs, well they were doing all they could to help a guy live. If the same person has had the Red Cross training class, then there could be a problem with those broken ribs. Zimmerman might not have been 'on duty' at the time, but he has read the rules/suggestions, has been told that the police don't need him to follow. He could have chosen to stay in his car, stay back a half block, and waited for the police to arrive. There has been nothing to indicate that there was any immediate threat to persons or property other than Zimmerman not recognizing Martin, so what was his rush? His case is not helped much when the college where he has been taking criminal justice classes asks him to stay away until the smoke clears.

gdanaher

Jusster wrote:I do still believe Zimmerman was “playing police” and it was his actions that lead to the encounter in the first place. For instance, what was Martin doing that made him suspicious? It is not illegal to walk home from the store in a hoodie is it? At this point, nobody knows how the fight started, but we do know that Zimmerman called in to report a suspicious person who was breaking no law and then proceeded to follow/chase Martin after he ran away.

As I have stated before. I see no problem with the law. But I will not step up and aid Zimmerman in any way, nor do I have any obligation to do so. It is not protecting the integrity of the law if it’s not applied justly. There are way too many questions surrounding this case for it not to have been sent to the GJ weeks ago. That would have avoided the media circus we have now.

Jusster

Agreed.

If Zimmerman had read the Neighborhood Watch Handbook, followed the suggestions, and then obeyed the 911 operator when told to hang tight until an officer arrived, this likely would never have made the news. If i am new to a neighborhood, it's night time, raining, and some guy is following me down the street, I might bet a little nervous too, and maybe even turn and demand why I was being followed.

The police chief was a recent replacement. His predecessor had problems and this guy was here to clean house. I'm pretty sure that here in Texas, any kind of shooting would get referred to the grand jury just as normal practice. Obviously not in Florida, but it would have saved the chief's job and saved the reputation of the local police.

gdanaher

Jusster wrote:Oh boy....I hope this isn't becoming an epidemic. Georgia to view its Stand Your Ground law.

Royce West effectively said the same thing about Texas law yesterday at a meeting. Another reason we need to play nice with the general concept of self protection.

gdanaher

74novaman wrote: In gdanahers case, a counter view point was responded to by attacking me for being "biased" instead of countering an idea with another idea.

This is far too close to the Josef Goebbels school of twisting the truth to be healthy. You failed to respond to the relevant content and went about attempting to split hairs over minutia. There has been a national tragedy in Florida. It looks bad and reflects poorly on anyone who values their 2A rights. It is far more important to focus time and energy on what that legislation in Florida did or did not allow for, and why the local police acted as they did.

gdanaher

Novaman,
You unfortunately continue to add your own agenda. Please do not add language or words to my comments that imply they are different from what they are, This is how politicians attempt to sway the uncleansed. Your argumentative nature, attempting to nitpick a single word into something it isn't, is unbecoming and likely to result in the higher powers banning you from the board. Please attempt to stay focused on the topic.

gdanaher

74novaman wrote:
Now the important part: After your initial statement (most people in society are either moderately anti gun or neutral), you posed the idea that legislation is GUARANTEED to be created to restrict gun rights after an event such as the Giffords shooting or this Zimmerman media circus.

I know what I said, and GUARANTEED is neither stated nor implied. You need to avoid reading your bias into other folk's comments.

Not only did the Arizona shooting fail to pass anti gun legislation, the CNN article I cited states that the shooting did NOTHING to sway people's attitudes regarding guns as their poll numbers remained the same.

That's because that guy was a nutjob, an aberration. He was off his nut and everyone around him seemed to know that. Zimmerman by all accounts was nothing like that, and the Sanford police seemed not to find his action worthy of much investigation, so either the local police in Sanford were shy about spending resources that might not bear fruit or they found his action to be within the provisions of state law. The general public looks at Zimmerman and sees the average gun owner, exercising force and little intelligence that results in the death of a minor. People generalize, so the uneducated public potentially sees all gun owners as people who might do the same thing. This does nothing to enhance the public opinion of chl owners.
The facts are as follows:
1) people in the US across every major demographic group are less likely to support new gun laws than they were 10 years ago. The trends are shifting in our favor.

I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, more support now than 10 years ago does not translate into a majority of the nation. Keep in mind that nearly everyone on this discussion board is pro gun. That does not mean that it reflects the view of the non-readers of this group.

2) In addition, if a US congresswoman getting shot doesn't produce anti gun legislation, I don't know if much will.

Well, a President was shot and nearly died. His press secretary took one to the head. If I recall, there was some legislation passed as a result of the one act that many of us did not appreciate. Gabbie was shot with a normal handgun with a large magazine by a nutjob, not with an AK. I fail to see the comparison is valid, but it seems you are bent on twisting things to your narrow view. Have a nice day.

gdanaher

VMI77 wrote:
gdanaher wrote:
74novaman wrote:Well, GDANAHER, if you're interested, I responded to your assertion regarding gun tragedies=new gun laws and that most people are either neutral or anti gun......back on the bottom of page 4.

Didn't want you to miss that in the subsequent 3 pages of back and forth between VMI and Jusster.

Yes, I still have my day job and can't crawl through all this garbage on an hourly basis. The statistics can be read differently I guess so here goes: Currently, 44% of those polled nationally felt that gun laws should be strengthened. Is it ok to they are likely anti gun?? Further down in the article it stated that 29% of individuals owned guns, so I am figuring they are pro gun, not anti, right?? Now, 42% of households own guns which means that you have come couples (I'd say married, but the times have changed), who might disagree on this issue but let's shoot on the high side and say that 42% are pro gun. Your statistics. That leaves 14% of the population that apparently cares neither way. They don't support, they don't think they need new laws. So, 58% of those polled were either anti-gun or neutral on the issue. Now, isn't that pretty much what I said 3 pages ago?
The statistics you're citing are pretty much meaningless. In the first place, poll results are meaningless unless they include the exact questions asked and a description of the population polled. No, it's not OK to assume the 44% you cite as being in favor of stronger guns laws as being anti-gun. I for instance, I might favor some better system of keeping guns away from people with mental problems. Without knowing precisely what laws this group approves of no conclusion about their position on gun ownership can be drawn. Next, no, we can't assume the 29% figure tells us how many individuals own guns because people may lie about owning a gun, and the bias will probably be towards denying ownership rather than falsely claiming ownership; and we can't say anything about whether individuals are more likely to dissemble on the question of ownership than households. The 42% number for households is questionable for the same reason as the 29% number. You interpretation is also questionable because the nature of ownership is undefined. Some households may consider guns to be jointly owned, so that individuals may say they don't own a gun. Finally, the 14% who say they don't care may merely be satisfied with the status quo, and may well oppose many gun control measures from prohibitions on owning particular types of guns to confiscation (or they may not --we don't know).

Don't shoot the messenger. Novaman cited these stats as his basis for arguing his case that I was wrong when I stated that most people are either anti gun or neutral on the issue, and that bad publicity can sway the opinion of those who are neutral toward being anti gun. I believe I am correct on this matter, and his own stats tend to support my view.

gdanaher

Apparently the Florida law was enacted in 2005. Is there anyone here sufficiently familiar with Florida CC laws to hazard a guess as to the likelihood that Zimmerman's license training should have covered this topic either initially or as a renewal? Their consistency is likely no better than ours, but I'm wondering if it could be argued that he had not been properly educated. He was working as a neighborhood watchman. Did that job, paid or unpaid, require additional formal training or licensing in Florida?

gdanaher

74novaman wrote:Well, GDANAHER, if you're interested, I responded to your assertion regarding gun tragedies=new gun laws and that most people are either neutral or anti gun......back on the bottom of page 4.

Didn't want you to miss that in the subsequent 3 pages of back and forth between VMI and Jusster.

Yes, I still have my day job and can't crawl through all this garbage on an hourly basis. The statistics can be read differently I guess so here goes: Currently, 44% of those polled nationally felt that gun laws should be strengthened. Is it ok to they are likely anti gun?? Further down in the article it stated that 29% of individuals owned guns, so I am figuring they are pro gun, not anti, right?? Now, 42% of households own guns which means that you have come couples (I'd say married, but the times have changed), who might disagree on this issue but let's shoot on the high side and say that 42% are pro gun. Your statistics. That leaves 14% of the population that apparently cares neither way. They don't support, they don't think they need new laws. So, 58% of those polled were either anti-gun or neutral on the issue. Now, isn't that pretty much what I said 3 pages ago?

gdanaher

74novaman wrote: Considering the reports are that this guy had a permit, and Florida is not one of those states that has constitutional/permitless carry, I fail to see how your twist has any connection, snip

(I just heard that the Sanford PD Chief is suspending himself until the matter is resolved. Too bad. )

Where I was headed is this: Every group is going to have some screwballs. We know that. Heck, just read some of these posts, :-\ The process of cc licensing and vetting eliminates some of the risk of this but certainly not all. The constitutional carry folks run a higher risk of having folks in their group who are more risky, less well trained and prepared to deal with an emergency, and might have the potential to make headlines when none were really needed. Most people in society are either moderately anti gun or neutral. It takes little to swing some to the anti side, and when that happens, folks contact their legislators and then those folks craft new rules that might limit our ability to cc. So whenever someone with a license does something boneheaded, it reflects on everyone, and when a nutcase cuts loose in a crowd, legislation is guaranteed to be generated, and the higher the profile of the case, the more wordy is the legislation. The general public makes little or no distinction between a criminal 'brandishing' a handgun, a license holder shooting a defenseless person, or a constitutional carry citizen losing control. We all need to be aware that a single shot could impact millions of licensed folks nationally.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 17 matches

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger

Re: Stand Your Ground in Danger