Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

Protect Me From My Gun

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.


    1. Shaun Appleby

      Is that one of these concealed carry yahoos can start an unprovoked fight with me and draw and shoot me dead if they subjectively fear bodily harm in consequence. It is the logic of orcs.

      These people are sick of arguing with us and simple want to shoot us all down in cold blood without facing prosecution. Anyone outsider who travels in a ‘stand your ground’ jurisdiction is out of their mind.

    2. kishik

      Someone who did just that.  By virtue of the job, he was legally authorized to carry a gun.  But he was also crazy enough to also carry a concealed weapon strapped to his ankle.

      Do I think he was not quite mentally stable? Umm… Yes.

      Which is why this extension of argument is so insane.  It is the logic of this guy… Who I always stayed on his good side because I always thought he’d go postal.

      But gun makers have to much financial weight in this country.  They buy politicians and eat them up like candy.


    3. wordsinthewind

      time and place restrictions that could be Constitutionally placed on the the use and ownership of firearms, if we have the polititcal will. I favor a strong background check system with penalties for those who fail to comply with reporting requirements. I support most gun control up to registries, that is my stopping point. I think instead of trying to outright ban these militarized weapons and large capacity magazines we should make them difficult to use legally. Since the only justification I’ve heard for large capacity magazines is target practice, well make it a crime to have a loaded magazine away from the firing range. That’s the only place it is useful for a lawful purpose, otherwise it simply enables people to shoot more people before reloading. So why should we allow them? If you think you need to shoot that many rounds in practice, fine take your magazines to the range and load ’em up to shoot. When empty you can carry them home. Sounds reasonable to me. And it would discourage a whole lot of the people who have them now, too much work and liability. Soon enough those weapons will be largely the province of criminals and then it won’t be hard to find the political will to ban them. It’s not a quck cure but it beats doing nothing.

    Comments are closed.