On Zimmy's statement to the court

[spin]

42. Like many who oppose concealed carry ...

you use emotion to support your argument.

When one person who has a carry permit is accused rightly or wrongly of murdering an innocent person and it attracts national media attention, you stereotype ALL 800,000 people who have carry permits in Florida as similar to him and insinuate that we are all quite possibly bloodthirsty vigilantes.

You state:

"Other citizens right to life trumps your right to strap on a deadly weapon."

Do you believe that I have no right to defend myself from an unprovoked attack from an individual who intends to put me in the hospital for an extended stay or six feet under? You do believe that your "right to life" trumps my right to defend myself if truly necessary.

Admittedly some among us have the experience and the training to have some chance even while unarmed to stop an attack from an individual who has a knife or a gun or is physically much larger or in far better shape. The reality is that the legal possession of a concealed weapon and the skill to use it may be the most effective means available to stop such an attack for the majority of those who find themselves in serious danger.

While incidents where people who legally carry a concealed weapon and use it for legitimate self defense do not receive the attention that the Martin shooting has generated, they do happen on a frequent basis. While anecdotal, I personally know of two incidents that involved fellow co-workers who successfully stopped an attack. In both cases, the mere fact that my co-workers were armed caused the attacker to reconsider his actions and walk away. No shots were fired, no blood was shed.

I have admitted that when a state allows as many as 800,000 citizens to legally carry a concealed weapon there will be and have been some incidents where a person misuses that privilege and the results can be tragic. If this was a common everyday occurrence, I would consider supporting a movement to repeal the law. I have presented statistics to support my contention while you have presented only emotion.

Do you feel any sympathy for those who are attacked on a daily basis in Florida or their families when they end up in a hospital or dead? Can you not at least admit that incidents where the presence of a legally concealed firearm stops a violent attack, even if the attacker is shot, are far superior to those in which an innocent person is a victim of a violent crime and suffers serious injury or death?

The right of self defense has a long history dating back to the early days of civilization. I have no idea if you are religious or not and while few Christians would consider me to be one of their flock, I found it interesting when I read this passage in Bible:

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

A sword was the concealed handgun of those days and if you have any knowledge of how deadly a sword is, you would realize that at close range it is far more effective than the handguns normally carried by people today.

But it might be wiser to look at our own history and look for legal support for self defense.

Self-defense (United States)

In the United States, the defense of self-defense allows a person to use reasonable force in his or her own defense or the defense of others (see the theoretical background for why this is allowed).

While the definitions vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of non-deadly and deadly force. A person may use non-deadly force to prevent imminent injury, however a person may not use deadly force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious injury or death. Some states also include a duty to retreat (exceptions include Louisiana and Florida), when deadly force may only be used if the person is unable to safely retreat. A person is generally not obligated to retreat if in one's own home in what has been called the castle exception (from the expression "A man's home is his castle&quot .

Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52, is one of the earliest cases to strongly support and establish in U.S. law an individual's right to initiate self-defense actions up to and including the justifiable use of lethal force against an aggressor.

In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_%28United_States%29

You might notice that not only did this early decision support the right of self defense but it also supports stand your ground law.

I am fully aware that I am not going to change your views but I come to DU for the fun of the debate on many issues. While I am a progressive and liberal Democrat, I differ from many as I support many firearm related issues such as the right to keep and bear arms and licensed concealed carry.

I've enjoyed our discussion and while we disagree, I will be happy to continue and present my views to counter yours. If you honestly feel:

I don't give a hoot if you do or don't agree. Is that clear enough, yet?

the simple solution is not to reply to my posts. While I respect your opinions, I feel they are foolish and illogical. Perhaps if you honestly consider my viewpoint, you will realize that you need to do some research and respond with a better argument. If you do, I look forward to your reply as there are excellent points to be made on both sides of the issue.