Trayvon Martin

[woot]

Maybe this is somewhat counter-intuitive, but I would kind of feel like having a gun should not necessarily influence behavior one way or the other in the two examples you give.

Meaning - if you are incline to involve yourself when someone is harassing another passenger on the train, having a gun or not shouldn't necessarily play a role in that. Or walking down a dark alley - walk down it if you don't sense danger, avoid it if you do. Regardless of your possession of a gun at the time. In many ways I feel like having a gun is like having health insurance. You don't plan on using it, you hope you don't need it, you don't take unnecessary risks because you have it. And being a man (and how men tend to behave when it comes to doctors) - I can even say that you wait until things are so miserable that you cannot fathom going forward before actually using it. And then you have it for when you need it.

Now - obviously what you do with that gun, whether or not you acknowledge its existence for instance, plays a huge role in all of this. But I don't think simply having the gun should matter one way or the other in how you behave leading up to needing it. I would acknowledge that if you're the kind of guy regularly getting into physical confrontations - you are probably better off not carrying one due to what may happen during one of those fights. But that isn't the majority of people in this world.

I'm not one to initiate a physical confrontation, and I don't have an ego that requires that I not back down or walk away when challenged. Frankly - I just don't care enough about what most other people think. So perhaps I'm a little different that way and perhaps that is the baseline I use when considering this.

Honestly - it sounds like you wouldn't ever plan on carrying a gun (and probably shouldn't). Your paradigm seems to be one of nothing justifying the death of another person - I get the sense that you'd rather risk death yourself than end the life of another. I don't want to sound like I'm judging that view - just saying that it isn't the same for everyone. For people coming at it from that perspective, it doesn't make sense to carry a gun. Some people place such a high value on themselves that they won't take a chance at all and would prefer someone else die than themselves be put any danger. For those folks it is worth it to carry and their conscience seems less likely to bother them should something happen than it would for someone like you.

And I think that we tend to judge each other based on which perspective we are coming from - which can make it difficult to understand each other at times.

This is an interesting discussion. I haven't been in a fight in my adult life, so I don't think carrying a gun would change my behavior very much. However, the vast majority of fights seem to involve folks who aren't trying to kill each other -- and who are probably consciously avoiding doing so. Carrying a gun brings with it the possibility (probability?) that any fight you enter into becomes a fight for your life. Even if you never get into fights, why intentionally increase the odds that your first fight ends in your death? In a home invasion scenario, it's still probable that the perp would like to avoid killing you, but the odds seem high enough that having a gun around seems more justifiable (independent of the other issues introduced by having a gun around your house).

[smokymountainrain]

Honestly - it sounds like you wouldn't ever plan on carrying a gun (and probably shouldn't). Your paradigm seems to be one of nothing justifying the death of another person - I get the sense that you'd rather risk death yourself than end the life of another. I don't want to sound like I'm judging that view - just saying that it isn't the same for everyone. For people coming at it from that perspective, it doesn't make sense to carry a gun. Some people place such a high value on themselves that they won't take a chance at all and would prefer someone else die than themselves be put any danger. For those folks it is worth it to carry and their conscience seems less likely to bother them should something happen than it would for someone like you.

Eddie, as usual for you, this is a very thoughtful response to the issue and it is very much appreciated. There are probably other parts of your post I should respond to, but this paragraph stood out.

First bolded - You are probably right there. I have no plans to ever carry concealed gun.

Second bolded - If only I were so noble. I'm not. If I were carrying and was walking down the street to a Jazz game with my family (wife and/or kids) - a street I couldn't avoid taking in order to get to the game and a guy pulled knife, I wouldn't hesitate to use the gun if I felt like our lives could be in danger due to his actions.

Third bolded - Based on my comments above, I think I feel the same. I would just hope that if I were carrying, I would do everything possible to avoid having to use the gun.

[frank ryan]

I found a larger picture, as well as another angle (with the body covered).

It is not a paper bag. What is seen in that photo is a piece of a plastic bag - it could be (should I say is consistent with?) a plastic bag you might get from a convenience store. The piece of plastic does not appear to be in Trayvon's hand, but looks to be a few inches away from it. Neither photo shows his left hand, so I can't see if something is in it.

Photo 1 (graphic - uncovered dead body): http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...to-trayvon.jpg

Photo 2 (covered dead body): http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-...17598_free.jpg

Clearly a latex glove.

You guys have really undercut my ability to be indignant, damnit. Ok, maybe I was grasping at straws and looking at the bigger photo unravels the columnists entire screed. I'm still sick of the posthumous attacks on a dead 17-year old.

[SandYFan]

You guys have really undercut my ability to be indignant, damnit. Ok, maybe I was grasping at straws and looking at the bigger photo unravels the columnists entire screed. I'm still sick of the posthumous attacks on a dead 17-year old.

And somehow I'm the irrational, emotion-based, typical CougarBoard poster.

[Blueintheface]

And somehow I'm the irrational, emotion-based, typical CougarBoard poster.

He was trying to be self-depricating and magnanimous, you ninny.

[Eddie]

This is an interesting discussion. I haven't been in a fight in my adult life, so I don't think carrying a gun would change my behavior very much. However, the vast majority of fights seem to involve folks who aren't trying to kill each other -- and who are probably consciously avoiding doing so. Carrying a gun brings with it the possibility (probability?) that any fight you enter into becomes a fight for your life. Even if you never get into fights, why intentionally increase the odds that your first fight ends in your death? In a home invasion scenario, it's still probable that the perp would like to avoid killing you, but the odds seem high enough that having a gun around seems more justifiable (independent of the other issues introduced by having a gun around your house).

That's what I'm saying. I'm not a fighter and haven't been in one since Jr High (as long as younger brothers don't count). I find I can talk my way out of it even when folks are looking for a fight - or at least I've been able to so far.

The problem with fights is that whether you want to kill someone or not - you never know what's going to happen. Remember that soccer ref who was killed by one punch from a 16 year-old kid? At what point could he have identified danger? And frankly (OK - I probably don't really believe this but it sounds good at times) there are a bunch of tough guys who tend to pick fights with people they can (and do) beat the trash out of fairly regularly - and there is some level of justice that would come from them picking a fight with the wrong guy who puts them in the hospital. Since that is unlikely - what if the wrong guy they decide to beat on and who has no interest in being beaten on is armed?

I don't know. Seriously. It is interesting to discuss but I really don't know. I actually have a concealed carry permit. I've never actually carried. Even at home by guns are locked up and unloaded. But it is nice to know that when taking my guns to the range I don't have to worry about how packed up it is - because I have a permit.

Eddie, as usual for you, this is a very thoughtful response to the issue and it is very much appreciated. There are probably other parts of your post I should respond to, but this paragraph stood out.

First bolded - You are probably right there. I have no plans to ever carry concealed gun.

Second bolded - If only I were so noble. I'm not. If I were carrying and was walking down the street to a Jazz game with my family (wife and/or kids) - a street I couldn't avoid taking in order to get to the game and a guy pulled knife, I wouldn't hesitate to use the gun if I felt like our lives could be in danger due to his actions.

Third bolded - Based on my comments above, I think I feel the same. I would just hope that if I were carrying, I would do everything possible to avoid having to use the gun.

Thanks for the response.

I'm not sure I did as good a job describing this as it sounded in my head. I definitely believe that what I describe is a continuum. I just think some people wouldn't think twice about shooting another if they felt the slightest amount of danger at one end of the continuum, while others would rather die than kill on the other end. I think most of us are somewhere in the middle - though we might lean one way or the other. Notice that in my second point you highlighted I'm not saying you'd rather die than kill another - but you'd rather accept some risks than jump to the conclusion that you need to kill someone.

And that entire assessment could be off. That's just the way I took it when you talk about all of the additional precautions you feel someone should take if they were to carry a weapon. You come across as someone who would rather take some risks.

[il Padrino Ute]

Or even getting involved in any way.

Quick example. If I'm on the train and a guy starts harrassing another passenger, if I don't have a gun, chances are I'm going to get involved. If I have a gun, I will either not get involved at all or I will figure out something to do with my gun so I don't have it when I do confront the guy.

Rather than our guns giving us more courage, they should make us more cautious - in every situation. If I don't have a gun, I might walk down that dark alley because it's the quicker route to get where I want to go, where if I do have a gun, I will avoid the dark alley all together and go the more inconvenient route.

You are still assuming that his gun gave Zimmerman courage. Did it? Or is it your opinion that it did?

[smokymountainrain]

You are still assuming that his gun gave Zimmerman courage. Did it? Or is it your opinion that it did?

I've moved beyond that. I applied that comment as a general statement and to my hypotheticals about confronting a guy on a bus who is harrassing other passengers or walking down a known dangerous street littered with potentially dangerous people, when there is a safer option not far away.

In regard to Zimmerman, I don't care if having the gun made him more brazen or not, dude should have stayed in his truck.

[il Padrino Ute]

I've moved beyond that. I applied that comment to my hypothetical about confronting a guy on a bus who is harrassing other passengers or walking down a known dangerous street, when there is a safer option not far away.

In regard to Zimmerman, I don't care if having the gun more brazen or not, dude should have stayed in his truck.

Fair enough.

[SandYFan]

He was trying to be self-depricating and magnanimous, you ninny.

I understand that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I understand that.

In that case, then I guess you are the irrational, emotion-based, typical CougarBoard poster.

[imanihonjin]

So why the sarcastic reply to Smokeymountain? He has never called for violence to occur to him. He actually expressed the opposite.

Because he basically said he didn't care if Zimmerman had to deal with negative repercussions from the outcome of the case. I find that disturbing.

[smokymountainrain]

Because he basically said he didn't care if Zimmerman had to deal with negative repercussions from the outcome of the case. I find that disturbing.

Uh this is what you said:

I am extremely uncomfortable with people being okay with people calling out violence on his head

I believe I was clear, yes, crystal clear, that I didn't want any physical harm to to befall Zimmerman. It's okay you chose to ignore that fact as I've come to expect that type of behavior from you throughout this thread.

[imanihonjin]

Uh this is what you said:



I believe I was clear, yes, crystal clear, that I didn't want any physical harm to to befall Zimmerman. It's okay you chose to ignore that fact as I've come to expect that type of behavior from you throughout this thread.

If that is how you feel, then I apologize, but when you state that basically because you believe that Zimmerman was at fault and that you don't care if he as to alter his life based on the outcome of the case, then I draw the conclusion that you will turn a blind eye if Zimmerman has to deal with issues arising from the actions of other people, i.e., violence. So while you may not call out violence on his head, you appear to be okay if others commit acts of violence on him.

[Indy Coug]

If that is how you feel, then I apologize, but when you state that basically because you believe that Zimmerman was at fault and that you don't care if he as to alter his life based on the outcome of the case, then I draw the conclusion that you will turn a blind eye if Zimmerman has to deal with issues arising from the actions of other people, i.e., violence. So while you may not call out violence on his head, you appear to be okay if others commit acts of violence on him.

100 of your 116 posts on this site have been in this thread. Holy shit, obsessed much?