[lumpster]

Less than nine months after Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in central Florida, another black teenage student was killed under suspicious circumstances.

Michael David Dunn, a 45-year-old vice president of Dunn & Dunn Data Systems in Vero Beach, was in Jacksonville this past weekend for his son’s wedding. The Orlando Sentinel details what happened on Friday when Dunn, a gun collector, encountered Jordan Russell Davis, a student at nearby magnet school Samuel W. Wolfson High:


Jordan Russell Davis, 17, and several other teenagers were sitting in a sport utility vehicle in the parking lot when Dunn pulled up next to them in a car and asked them to turn down their music, [Jacksonville sheriff's Lt. Rob] Schoonover said.

Jordan and Dunn exchanged words, and Dunn pulled a gun and shot eight or nine times, striking Jordan twice, Schoonover said. Jordan was sitting in the back seat. No one else was hurt.Dunn’s attorney Monday said her client acted responsibly and in self-defense. She did not elaborate.

Schoonover also said that “there were words exchanged” between the two, and Dunn claims to have felt “threatened” before opening fire.

According to his father Ron Davis, the teenager died in the arms of his friend in the car. Ron said his son was unarmed.

Dunn was arrested at his home on Saturday and charged with murder and attempted murder. He is being held without bail.

Davis’s funeral will take place on Saturday, Dec. 1 and his parents plan to create a foundation “for at risk students that suffer from tragedies, in his memory.”

Since Dunn is claiming self-defense, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which earned infamy after Trayvon Martin’s killing, could be at issue in this case. After Martin’s death, Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) appointed a task force to review the law that authorizes the unfettered use of deadly force in self-defense, but the panel didn’t recommend any significant changes


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/1 ... ell-davis/


Now while the story is bad and it looks as if this guy will be in prison for a very long time.. Check out the comments as to the reason why this guy shot this kid..


folks, take a long hard look at Mr. Michael David Dunn, note the physical characteristics: over 40, caucasian, angry looking. There are thousands if not millions of these guys, all over America and they are known to be heavily armed and accustomed to deference in police matters. They feel entitled, resentful of losing an election, and are certain that even without weapon or provocation, an Obama voter is a threat to them. They are bigots. They are losers. They are the worst kind of cowards and they shoot to kill.

[elklindo69]

Now every swinging dick is going to shoot then claim self defense.

Florida is one fucked up state....

[DarknLadyJedi]

So every white male over 40 is going to be out gunning for people to shoot?

I suppose by that logic and the amount of robberies committed by blacks that they have every right to assume that every black male is armed and a threat to them.

Give me a break. This was an isolated incident that has nothing to do with politics, and probably nothing to do with racism or bigotry. It does have everything to do with stupidity, and most likely alcohol.



Elk, plenty of people claim self defense when they can not claim they are not the shooter. It's pretty much his only possible defense, regardless of what state he is in.

The fact is that it's not going to get him very far. He pulled up next to the kids. Then while his GF and the driver of the SUV were in the store he confronted the kids. After words were exchanged he fired into the vehicle. His GF came out and they got in his car and drove away. He admitted to her firing into the vehicle. When they saw on the news that the kids was killed they packed up and went home to another county. He was identified from his license plate and after he was arrested said that he was planning to turn himself in.

This guy doesn't have a chance of claiming self defense and getting off.

And FYI, he was in town for his son's wedding, and was on his way back to the hotel when he and his GF stopped for more wine.

[Leroy]

The entire story is biased, we can see that from the opening line "Less than nine months after Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in central Florida"

It should have read, Less than nine months after a VIOLENT NATURED BLACK ADULT attacked an innocent hispanic man, forcing him to defend himself with deadly force, another shooting has taken place in our state".

Also, notice how they never mention Black-on-Black shootings, which account for most killings of blacks in this country.

[Vj2]

The entire story is biased, we can see that from the opening line "Less than nine months after Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in central Florida"

It should have read, Less than nine months after a VIOLENT NATURED BLACK ADULT attacked an innocent hispanic man, forcing him to defend himself with deadly force, another shooting has taken place in our state".

Also, notice how they never mention Black-on-Black shootings, which account for most killings of blacks in this country.

Leroy, the only issue you should take up is with the word "less" as it implies possible issues in the state with regards to race. The facts are that Martin was shot and killed. It doesn't talk about right or wrong innocence or guilt with regard to the Martin case You would like it to read that way but then it wouldn't be factual. I understand that you believe that you are privy to some sort of "factual opinion"code

[lumpster]

The killing was what it was.. but the comments that the man killed that kid cause he was angry that Obama had won the election and he wanted to take it out on Obama supports is what got my attention..

[lumpster]

It's clear the stand your ground law has to go.. It's like the old west in Florida and they aren't preventing anyone from getting killed they are making more victims..

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/us/florid ... ?hpt=ju_c2

They are making more victims but calling these victims the bad guys..Dead men can tell their side of the story makes it easy for them to walk.. This is clearly bad law and must be thrown out..

[DarknLadyJedi]

Stand your ground has to go?

So you feel that people who are attacked or threatened should run away? Or maybe a disarmed populace is much safer in your view?

After all, criminals always go after armed people ready to defend themselves.
They would never specifically target stores that have do not resist policies.
Or rob houses that they think are empty or have only women and children in them.
And they would never, ever go on shooting rampages at places where guns are not allowed, like schools & colleges. Or places they are discouraged, like churches.

Stand your ground extends the Castle Doctrine, it does not allow for murder. It does not mean that the police won't do a full investigation. It does mean that when you are attacked and enough evidence exists to support your claim you do not automatically go to jail. Without stand your ground a victim who defends themselves is automatically treated as the aggressor.

Unless you believe that anyone that defends themselves is automatically wrong for depriving the criminal of what they want?

[Shimmer]

There is nothing wrong with stand your ground laws since a person should have the right to defend themselves. All they need to do is verify in every case where self defense is claimed that the law is properly applied. It won't be the "Wild West" if they follow the law.

From the limited information available in this case it clearly seems like the shooter is wrong, especially since he supposedly admitted to shooting into the car and not shooting at someone he felt threatened by. Then the fact he left the scene and later fled to a third location only claiming he was going to turn himself in after being caught seems to show intent to flee. In the Trayvon Martin case Zimmerman followed Martin even after being told that they didn't need him to do that which seems to indicate that he escalated a non threatening situation into one. Had he just stayed in his car and met the police when they got there as instructed it's unlikely there would have been a shooting. His case is not so clear.

It seems to me that if you find yourself in a situation where you have to stand your ground and defend yourself that there would be no reason to leave the scene if you felt it was a justified defense. Personally in that situation I would be the one to call the cops to make sure that when they respond that they get my side of the story and so they will have the incident scene as undisturbed as possible to exonerate me quickly with their investigation.

[DarknLadyJedi]

seems to me that if you find yourself in a situation where you have to stand your ground and defend yourself that there would be no reason to leave the scene if you felt it was a justified defense. Personally in that situation I would be the one to call the cops to make sure that when they respond that they get my side of the story and so they will have the incident scene as undisturbed as possible to exonerate me quickly with their investigation.

Even had he felt threatened enough to flee the scene after discharging his weapon he is required by law to report the incident. The fact that after discharging his weapon he allowed his GF to approach the vehicle gives lie to his statement that he felt threatened.

People need to understand that the stand your ground law does not automatically mean you get off free. No more than the castle doctrine allows you to get in an argument over a football game in your house and shoot someone. The fact that people are attempting to use it as a defense just shows how far they have to reach to try an justify their actions.

And yes, the shooting after football game was a real incident. And yes, the shooter tried to use castle doctrine as his basis for self defense. No, it did not work.

[lumpster]

Did you guys hear this guys argument?

He says the guys were exchanging words with him and that he saw a shotgun coming out of the front window so he shot in the back door because he didn't see anyone in there to try and scare the people in the car and that he just drove off becasue he felt that he hadn't shot anyone and only after watching the news the next day that he found out that he killed someone..

There's no way he should be allowed to use that as a defense.. That's not standing your ground.. Also police didn't find a weapon no one was able to say they saw a weapon but him.. The police didn't buy his story which is why they threw him in jail..

[elklindo69]

I just went to the gas station and someone was blaring rap music at one of the pumps. I filled up my tank in the freezing cold and went home without incident.

nuff said....

[DarknLadyJedi]

Lump, he is allowed to use his version of events as a defense. He just has to convince 1 person on the jury that that was exactly what happened.

Oh, and that he stood around afterwards waiting for his GF to come out, walk towards the car he felt threatened by, both get in and then drive calmly away. Remember, she was inside the store at the register when she heard the shots.

Now, I will buy that he thought the back seat was empty and shot the kid on accident. Still makes it murder 2 in FL.

[justdoit]

Just wondering
Was there anything specific in Fl that made them pass the "stand your ground" law?
DarkNladyJedi
Enjoyed your pics from FF. I was looking , saw this beautiful lady in a plaid tie. Thought " ya know that looks just like", and low and behold when I looked at who submitted them.....

[DarknLadyJedi]

FL's stand your ground law was a work in progress for many years.

Just to be clear, here is the relevant law:


USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.


776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—



(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.






But getting back to your question. Stand your ground is a law which extends the Castle Doctrine to allow a person to defend themselves in any location in which they are lawfully allowed to be in, while engaged in lawful activities, and when in immediate fear of their lives.

Immediate fear of your life means that a reasonable person presented with the same set of circumstances must believe that a person or persons has the ability and motivation to carry out a threat of great bodily harm or death.

If you get into an argument with someone and they say "I'm gonna fucking kill you" with empty hands balled up and ready to have a fistfight with you, you are not going to get a reasonable person to believe that they intended to actually kill you. If you are jogging and someone jumps out of the bushes and grabs you while holding a knife, you should probably be in fear.

Prior to the stand your ground law it was the victim's responsibility to exhaust all reasonable means of escape before resorting to the use of deadly force to defend themselves. Under stand your ground they have removed a victim's duty to retreat prior to the use of deadly force.

In practice:

You are walking down a sidewalk and are approached by 3 men who block you in and demand your money. They begin to angle you towards an alleyway or bushes to block the view of anyone passing by.

Before stand your ground you would have had to attempt to flee this encounter before drawing your firearm. If you attempted to run and they grabbed you and found you had a gun and took it, oh well, sucks to be you. If you pulled your gun out and they didn't back off and you shot one of them, well, there were several directions you could have run in, why didn't you do that first? And here's where you will be sleeping until the court case get's settled and you have to pay off those lawyer fees.

Under stand your ground, you have no duty to retreat. You can draw your firearm and tell them to back off, if you shoot one, sucks to be them.

I used 3 men in this example to show that they do not have to be armed, or to show you any weapons. What is a requirement is that you have a fear of them for a real quantifiable reason. 3 unarmed muggers attempting to get you out of view may be planning on causing you serious have if you don't hand over your money, or even if you do.



In relation to the case in Jacksonville, Dunn claims that he saw a shotgun and fired into the back seat to scare them. This would make sense, if he would have immediately fled the area and then reported it. He did not immediately leave the area nor did he report it.

He waited while his GF came out of the store and walked towards the vehicle that he claims he was in fear of. He let her get into the vehicle and drove off calmly. He failed to ever report the incident, even leaving the city when he found out that a person had died. These are not the actions of a person in fear for their life.

[justdoit]

Jedi
Thanks for the info
I guess my prob is
I understand the right of a citizen to defend themselves when threatened, anywhere, any place. And with a base of sane reasonable people its makes perfect sense. But when ya mix a few beers with lots of testosterone ya get this guy that thinks a gun is the answer to loud music infringing his rights. When Fl makes a law like this, an has if I believe one of the most lenient concealed weapon permit laws it can be a bad mix in my opinion. So there are positives and negitives for both sides. Doesn't Colo, Ok, Az, Al and other states have laws similar but not quite so visible or lenient? What if there were a shotgun in that suv, and one of the boys killed the idiot in his car. What would the argument have been. He pulled a gun and they were defending themselves?
I don't know the answer, there is no right answer, just a least worst answer to the question of Fl's law.

[DarknLadyJedi]

With a base of sane reasonable people we wouldn't need guns. Rosie and Oprah would not need their own concealed firearms if everyone was sane and reasonable.

Guns are not to defend against sane and reasonable people.

As for guns and alcohol mixing, it's illegal. In FL a persona legally carrying a firearm into a bar faces a harsher penalty than a person illegally carrying a gun into a bar.
FL is one of the easiest state to obtain a concealed weapons permit, that does not make the laws for carrying that concealed weapon more lenient. It means that in FL people are presumed to have the right to carry and defend themselves. They are not required to prove they have a reason. This is the biggest difference in FL's "lenient" concealed carry law, a person is presumed to be innocent and to have the right to carry a firearm and defend themselves until proven otherwise. An average citizen doesn't have to prove they have a reason to defend themselves.



OK, let's look at had the kids actually had a shotgun. They argue and the guy shoots into the SUV. The 2nd kid in the back grabs the shotgun and shoots Dunn standing outside.

Aside from witnesses we would have to rely on forensic evidence, interviews of the people involved, possibly video tape evidence as well. Basically regular police work.

But, why would the kids have had the shotgun? Why was the shotgun loaded? Did the kids brandish the shotgun first? These are all valid questions in your hypothetical situation.

Let's make it a more level situation.

Person A, known as PA, pulls up to the store and his GF gets out and goes in to buy some snacks.
Person B, known as PB, is already sitting in a car the the spot next to PA. He is in the passenger seat waiting for the driver to come out of the store with their ice cream sandwiches.
PB is sitting back letting the music play, it's a great song and he really likes it so he cranks up the volume. So high it actually violates the noise ordinance and is illegal.
PA gets out of his vehicle and tells PB to turn the music down. Because it is so loud he has to shout.
PB flips PA the bird and keeps listening. PA reaches into the vehicle to turn the knob and PB punches him and yells for him to "get the fuck out of the car."
PA pulls out his gun and waves it around to show he isn't going to be intimidated.
PB sees the gun and decides this crazy fucker might actually shoot him over the loud music so he pulls out his gun.
PA sees PB pull out a gun and thinks that maybe he is about to get shot.

One of them shoots the other and that person dies.

I have just laid out all the facts for you. You can easily determine who was right and who was wrong. But the police arriving on the scene don't have those facts. They have 1 version of the story unless there are witnesses.
They will consider all of the evidence on scene, they will then decide based on what they know if an immediate arrest needs to be made. Then they will file their report.
That report will then be examined by others. Other detectives will go out and look at other evidence, talk to other people. And in the end they will present their case to the prosecutor who will examine it, possibly even have special detectives look into it, and will then decide if it should go to court.
Once it reaches this point it is up to a group of people who couldn't find a way to get out of jury duty to decide who was right and who was wrong based on the evidence provided.

It's not perfect. But it's a hell of a lot better than a lot of other systems.

[justdoit]

Jedi
First your really bad. When ya said Rosie and Oprah had their concealed weapons, I just about blew dinner through my nose....
I can't argu about your statements nor examples
But this is my delima.
I guess it revolves around those words "base of sane and reasonable people". Its a fact that most people killed by guns are killed by by relatives. So if we used just pure logic to make law, guns would be outlawed, deaths would most likely be reduced. Stats in countries where guns are controled more than here prove it. But this is America. And I do believe we have the right of that freedom to own guns. So I am willing to accept the greater number of unwarranted deaths in the name of that freedom. For better or worse .
And thats my delima
I am willing to accept the right to bear arms over the fact that Americans will be denied their right of life, liberity and happiness due to that right to bear arms.

[RealJustme]

Less than nine months after Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in central Florida, another black teenage student was killed under suspicious circumstances.

Black are killed by blacks nightly under suspicious circumstances in several States, why is every 9 months in Florida news worthy and the others aren't?

[justdoit]

No sensulalization.
I guess Detroit/Chicago/New Orleans already had their 15 minutes on our adhd addled news cycle.
Used to be blacks killing whites was the big news, reason for an instant lynching. Hell even whistling at a white girl was a reason to be lynched,let alone sitting at the front of the bus, drinking at the wrong water fountion,or eating at Woolworths. Don't even get me started about blacks sharing the same foxholes with whites. Or so I saw on the news, the news that now talk about whites wrongly killing blacks. Whoulda thunk it....
Maybe this is just karma coming back to roost....
Whats your thoughts

[DarknLadyJedi]

Just, your numbers are incorrect.

According to the UN Global studies report roughly 50% of females killed by homicide are killed by spouse/ex, or relative while roughly 15% of males are killed by spouse/ex or relative.
In the US that number is closer to 20% for females.

However, that is ONLY considering death.

What about other crimes?

How many robberies are committed using guns?
How many rapes?
Does it matter?

No, the answer is that it doesn't matter how often a criminal uses a gun. A gun is not a force multiplier for a criminal. A violent criminal picks their targets based on their ability to overpower their victim. It doesn't matter if they have a gun, a knife, or their bare hands. It doesn't matter if they are alone or working with others. They choose their victim with intent to succeed.

A gun is a force multiplier for a victim.

A gun makes a gay man the equal of a group of drunks out "fag bashing".
It makes a jogger the equal of a rapist in the bushes.
It makes a little old lady the equal of her mugger.

A gun is only an advantage for a weaker defender, it makes the weak equal to the strong. The gun is the ultimate equalizer, as capable in the hands of a 98 pound woman, as in the hands of an 80 year old man, as in the hands of a 240 pound weightlifting criminal.

Just because a criminal doesn't kill his victim does not mean that he has not created another victim. Anti-gun activists see only the deaths, they don't count the rapes, the robberies, the car jackings. They don't count all the victims of younger, stronger, and more violent attackers.

[justdoit]

Jedi
You are correct. What I was thinking but did not say say correctly was that from what I have read, most gun related deaths in the US were by relatives, or someone they the victim knew. So if that is true, what is the real cost of keeping a gun for security. Yes its true that they do indeed stop the bad guy, can equal the playing field. But there is a greater chance they will be used in anger against another, which is what I was trying to convey, poorly in hindsight it seems.
My bad
I have never read, maybe you have. Read any stats of justified defence using a gun as compared to homicide by a gun by a person the victim knew.

[justdoit]

Jedi
P.S. As to your last paragraph. Are you avocating every one should carry a gun because the criminal can and usually is bigger, stronger, or more violent?
In a purely statisatical view if this country had no guns there would be fewer deaths. Yes more robberies, car jacking, but I wonder if death buy an argument from a drunken spouse would offset that. So I guess whats worse, being car jacked or being killed by a drunken spouse or so called friend. Neither is good or right, just saying.
A victim is a victim whether its from a criminal or relative.
But I could be wrong
Leroy once said more kids in Chicago were killed in highscool Football in the last ten years than gun related deaths on kids in the same period. Then doubled down on his statement even though it was shown to be complete and total bull. Or was it, I don't read the same articals as Leroy.

[Vj2]

Black are killed by blacks nightly under suspicious circumstances in several States, why is every 9 months in Florida news worthy and the others aren't?

Because the mighty news houses weigh what will garner more interest that's why. :roll:

[DarknLadyJedi]

Well, the 20% of women killed by spouse, ex-spouse, or relative number comes directly from the UN's latest study. It includes ALL homicides, not just those with a gun. So that pretty well shoots down the "most people are kills by family or loved ones" argument.

Sadly there is no tracking done of firearms used for defense except in cases where a fatality is involved. Often the victim simply presenting a firearm is enough for an attacker to flee. Most criminals are basically cowards at heart, they prey on the weak because they can get away with it. When faced with an opponent who is their equal they will often flee, this obviously does not apply in all cases, especially not when the attacker is high.

Am I advocating that everyone have a gun? Hell no. But, I don't see any reason why every sane, reasonable, law abiding citizen shouldn't be allowed to get training and to have a gun, or even carry it. The main reason we see things like school shootings is because attackers know that those places are safe for them, same goes go job sites that ban guns. Do people flip out and not care? Yes. But for most, even those who intend on killing themselves or death by cop, they have a subconscious desire to survive and to set things in motion on their own terms.


As to the number of deaths from school football, it's hard to pin down. Directly football caused 22 deaths from '82-'02. But those are only the deaths directly related to a game. A lot of deaths occur during training or are attributed to other causes. For instance if a player dies of heat stroke it doesn't get counted as a sports death, same as players with congenital heart issues that have a heart attack while playing.

A 1998 UNC study found that there were 6 deaths directly related to school football in 1997 in the US, with another 8 that were connected to the game but could have resulted from any vigorous activity.

In comparison for the 2001-2002 school year in the US we had 5 school related deaths from shootings.
We also had 3 suicides, 6 murder/suicides, 1 dead from a fight, 1 stabbed to death, and 1 other, for a total of 17 school related deaths.

Of the deaths that were from shootings:
1 was a gang shooting while the victim was walking home.
1 was shoot during a robbery on the subway on his way home.
1 was found on school property shot dead at night, victim was a 24yo male and police suspect that it was drug related.
1 was shot and killed as he walked home with friends.
1 was shot in the parking lot of a rival school following a basketball game.

So I am going to say that statistically, it could go either way. The difference being that football is a game in which people get hurt or die by accident. While you can get shot by accident, non-hunting accidents are the direct result of poor training and the inability to follow basic firearms safety.

[justdoit]

Jedi
If you reread what I wrote. I said in this country most gun related deaths occured from either a relative, or someone the victim knew. Not all deaths, but gun related deaths, in this country. A gun is quite easy and effienct in its use.
Of the 23 wealthiest country's 80% of all gun related deaths were in the US. 87% of all childrens death by guns were in the US. Thats a pretty steep price for the ability to have the 2nd amendment.
My argument with Leroy
July 25th this year Leroy wrote
"Twice as many children were killed playing football in highschhool than are murdered by guns. Thats right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths realted to highschool football than guns".
Fact "Abc news, dec 9 2007. Three hundred and twenty three students have died in documented school shooting over the past 15 years".

[DarknLadyJedi]

OK, honestly this requires a much longer answer than I can give right now since I am preparing to be gone for the next couple of days.

But ABC's numbers are interesting to say the least.
According to the US CDC from July 1999 to June 2006 there were 116 student who died from homicide. These numbers include all homicides, not just shootings. Of those 101 were single homicides and 15 involved multiple homicides. While that study is roughly half the length of time from what ABC claimed, it is a direct study from the CDC and accounts all homicides.

[justdoit]

Really it doesn't matter in my eyes what the number of school shooting were. 6^ or 600. What matters is why in this country do we accept the fact that we lead the world, by a far margin in gun deaths. What is there in our mindset that we accept it. But we do, I do.

[brandon]

I suppose by that logic and the amount of robberies committed by blacks that they have every right to assume that every black male is armed and a threat to them.

TFF. :lol:


Who gives a fuck about some racist black thug blasting his kill the crackers racist music.?

He did that to anger a member of a group that he hates.

He was successful.

:o



:lol:

[RealJustme]

For those who feel they don't need to defend themselves or carry concealed weapons remember this fact:

When seconds matter, help is only minutes away.

[brandon]

This guy was race baited by some racists looking for a confrontation.

Yup.

[brandon]

Would the whiteys be all upset that some cracker kids got capped for blasting some Skrewdriver @ the 40.oz Mart down in the hood?

'nuff said.

8-)

[brandon]

Dem damn Crackas...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSvD5SM_uI4