The Trayvon Martin murder case occupied an enormous amount of attention while it proceeded from a shot fired to a case of second degree murder being dismissed. The reasons it so captured American attention will be examined for years to come. Initially, as well as after the verdict, the racial aspects of the case drew the majority of attention. But intermixed in that complex sociological issue was a ruling that is as shocking in its simplicity as it is frightening in its implications.
I used my gun to protect me from my gun.
This is now a valid defense.
The logic is literally dizzying.
A person carries a gun.
If they feel threatened by anyone they can logically argue that they feared the other person might take their gun.
And then they can of course honestly say that they were fearing that their life would be taken by the person who might take their gun away and shoot them with it.
So they shoot the other person to keep the other person from shooting them…
With the gun they themselves were carrying.
It almost needs a diagram.
What it does is simply justify the use of a weapon whenever one is present. It justifies carrying a gun, because if you don’t keep your gun with you how can you defend yourself against your gun when someone tries to take your gun away from you and shoot you with your gun?
I need my gun to protect me from my gun.
Maybe we should all carry two guns, so we can shoot two people who might try to take our guns away. Heck, if you carried enough guns you could bring down a whole mall full of otherwise unarmed people in justifiable self defense. To keep them from killing your with your own guns.
It’s bloody madness.
One thing is overwhelmingly clear. If George Zimmerman didn’t have a gun with him, he wouldn’t have had a reason to fear for his life. If he didn’t have a reason to fear he would lose his life to the gun that he himself brought into the situation, he would not have any reason to use the gun he was carrying to kill a teenage boy and defend himself from his own gun.