When the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre finally spoke out about the Trayvon Martin shooting, it was to decry the media's coverage of the tragedy as "sensational reporting from Florida." It's understandable that the NRA would be uncomfortable with the intense media attention to this particular shooting tragedy.
For one thing, the shooting has thrown a spotlight on the real-world impact of the "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later" (aka "Stand Your Ground") laws the NRA has pushed in Florida and other states across the country that are allowing dangerous individuals to literally "get away with murder." But the NRA's discomfort has even deeper roots. In a real sense, Trayvon Martin's death at the hands of George Zimmerman exposes the mythology of the NRA's core narrative about guns and self-defense.
The NRA has a wonderfully simple story to tell. In the NRA's world, people are neatly divided into two readily identifiable groups: good guys and bad guys. In this imaginary world, we know that legal carriers of guns must be good guys and that good guys use their guns only in legitimate self-defense -- that's what makes them good guys in the first place. The Trayvon Martin tragedy reveals the real world to be far more complicated.
The gun lobby often cites surveys purporting to establish that good guys defend themselves with guns millions of times every year. One survey repeatedly cited by the NRA asked "have you yourself, or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection"? Of course, after he shot Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, a legal concealed carrier under Florida's weak gun laws, would have answered this question, "Yes".
The survey would not have revealed that Zimmerman could have avoided any risk of confrontation with Trayvon Martin had he followed the suggestion of a police dispatcher to stop following Martin and instead left it to the police to investigate Zimmerman's report of a "suspicious" person. It would not have revealed that Zimmerman armed himself for his neighborhood watch duties in violation of the neighborhood watch guidelines that members "shall not carry weapons." Nor would it have revealed that Trayvon Martin was armed only with a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea at the time Zimmerman shot him dead. The Trayvon Martin shooting demonstrates that relying on a person's claim of self-defense is folly, in part because the person's own aggressive behavior may have caused the confrontation in the first place. Indeed, in prison surveys, over 60 percent of convicted felons who have fired a gun claim to have done so in self-defense.
Some years ago, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health designed, conducted and analyzed two telephone surveys asking about defensive uses of guns. Instead of simply accepting the respondents' claims of legitimate self-defense, the researchers asked extensive follow-up questions. Summaries of the incidents were then submitted to a panel of criminal court judges who were asked to give their opinions as to the legality of the claimed self-defense use of the gun.
Even though the only "evidence" submitted was the self-serving accounts of the shooters, of the incidents in which descriptions of the incident were provided, over half were rated as probably illegal by a majority of the judges. The Harvard researchers also found over two thirds of the self-defense gun incidents were reported by only six respondents, with three respondents claiming fifty, twenty and fifteen self-defense uses of guns each within the previous five years. Clearly there were more than a few "make my day" defensive gun uses being counted. Somewhat understating the matter, the Harvard research team observed that "many reported self defense gun uses from a respondent creates a suspicion that the uses may be aggressive rather than defensive."
There also is a body of research showing that people who carry guns with them are disproportionately likely to be aggressive. A Harvard study of Arizona drivers found that, compared to other Arizona drivers, drivers who carried a gun in their car were three times as likely to have engaged in rude, hostile and illegal driving. Indeed, the more often a driver carried a gun, the greater the likelihood that the driver would engage in such "road rage" conduct as making obscene gestures, cursing, tailgating or blocking other drivers. Yet another study, done at the national level, similarly found that "riding with a firearm in the vehicle appears to be a marker for aggressive and dangerous driver behavior." Gun owners who drive or ride in cars with loaded guns also are four times as likely to drink and drive as were people who did not own guns.
Nor does having a gun make someone safer; in fact just the opposite appears to be true. A study by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania showed that individuals in possession of a gun were 4-5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession of a gun. The researchers suggest several possible reasons for this result, including the fact that "a gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact and instigate conflicts" or to increase their risk of assault by entering dangerous environments that could have been avoided.
This is not to deny that some gun carriers take their responsibilities seriously. Nor is it to deny that guns can be used successfully in self-defense. But, according to the FBI, of the approximately 11,000 gun homicides every year, on average less than 300 are justifiable self-defense killings. The research tells us that what is happening in the real world bears no resemblance to the NRA's imaginary world. In the real world, far too many gun toters are prone to be aggressive, are "looking for trouble," and claim to have used their guns in self-defense, when in fact they have irresponsibly used their guns in public places.
The research tells us, in short, that there are far too many George Zimmermans on our streets, posing a risk to others and themselves. This is a direct result of our nation's gun laws which, at the behest of the gun lobby, make it easy for dangerous people to legally carry guns in public, make it legal for them to carry guns virtually everywhere, and then protect them when they misuse their guns under the guise of self-defense.
As compelling as the research is, the Trayvon Martin shooting makes far more real the danger of continuing to allow the NRA to foist its imaginary world on the rest of us. For most Americans, George Zimmerman has become the face of concealed carry. And, for most Americans, the NRA's "guns everywhere" vision of America has become, more plainly than ever, a nightmare.
Dennis Henigan is Vice President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the author of Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy(Potomac Books 2009).
NRA official: Media sensationalized Trayvon Martin case | NJ.com
NRA official accuses media of sensationalizing Trayvon Martin story
Trayvon Martin focus overshadowing other killings: NRA chief ...
NRA no longer silent on Trayvon Martin, Florida's Stand Your ...
know this article is pure bulldung.Pure liberal BS.
If liberals started to believe that the rights in the constitution empowered the weak/impoverished instead of believing that they only empower white/wealthy America, then our rights would be far more secure than they are today.
started to take that out.I apologise for anyone ( too you) who was offended.
I had fanned you,and now I wish I could again.As one who was in the military,
right out of high school,I do believe in freedom for all.We all have a right to
post our opinions( sometimes,mine is to quick,to emotional).I am blue collar
middle class ( far from rich) and I try to explain to the democrats, not all
of us are rich.Anyways Thanks,I agree and I like your level headed post.
Here are a couple facts that we do have:
-Martin was several inches taller and only 30 or so pounds lighter than Zimmerman. Either party certainly posed a significant threat in a physical encounter.
-Zimmerman had many wounds which corroborated his narrative.
-Martin had a broken knuckle at the autopsy, further corroborating Zimmerman's story that M assaulted him.
I'd have a hard time voting to convict a person who had clear wounds of assault, and who had used lethal force in self-defense to stop said assault.
It's like you're going out of your way to destroy your own credibility.
make the top ten.I could be wrong on this one but I think alcohol is number 6.
It is in the top ten.Let us rid ourselves of this and work our way down.
I often have to carry more than my share of the pro gun water in such threads, but not today.
When a governing body insists you hand over your armaments, the last thing you should do is comply.
The Carthaginians learned this lesson the hard way during the Third Punic War. It's sad that many people still struggle with this lesson over 2160 years later.
Yee haw, I bought a gun, I'm gonna go get drunk!
Then I can play with it, oil it up, rub it, and rub it, and shoot it off.
Then I could take the gun out of the box! :D :)
My way of saying this writer and his info is a joke, too.
I own guns, and I don't drink at all, and haven't for almost 13 years. Neither do my neighbors who own guns. There were five neighbors until one passed away from cancer. Kind of blows that out of the water. And what's even more significant about it we live within walking distance of a bar.
I guess Henigan throws out figures from his 'throne' before he uses the handle on the side of it.
Translation: all the study tells us is that men are more likely to drive drunk than women.
You are correct about that study and that's true. More men are arrested for DUI.
But he's clearly wrong. Between 2005 and 2009, when concealed carry and "stand your ground" laws were being passed, the FBI reported that murders decreased 9%. Murders involving firearms dropped 10%. The rate of all violent crimes plummeted from 684 per 100,000 people to 429; that's nearly half a million fewer crimes (including 6,000 fewer rapes), despite adding 45 million people to the population and the economic disaster of 2008.
Increased gun carry by citizens HASN'T made our streets more dangerous. Yet Hennigan refuses to accept that his fellow citizens are better people than he thinks. His elitism shines through.
By the way: Hennigan points out that only 300 gun homicides annually are justifiable self defense. He didn't mention that all police officers combined kill only 400 people a year with their guns. Obviously "death toll" is not a good measure of crime prevention. He focuses on death toll because of his childish caricature of how people use guns to prevent crime. I think he's seen "Die Hard" too many times.
Maybe you should read this. The NRA was right in it's condemning the media about it's coverage of the Martin case. Seems like there really was sensationalism going on after all. Something you seem to have forgotten to mention at all in your article. It also seems like you had the tendancy to do a little sensationalism yourself by the mere fact of ommission of these details. Remember, a lie by ommission is still a lie? Or are you going to ommit that as well?
Why did the crime rate go up despite the 1934 National Firearms Act?
Why did the crime rate go up despite the 1968 Gun Control Act?
Why did the crime rate go up despite the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act?
Why did the crime rate go up despite the 1994 "Assault Weapon" Ban?
Why did the crime rate go down despite the 1994 AWB expiring and gun ownership being up?
"Statement from NRA on Self-Defense Laws
Posted on May 4, 2012
The National Rifle Association always has, and always will, advocate the passage and preservation of self-defense laws. The alternative leaves the innocent in danger.
The vast majority of states do not impose a "duty to retreat" and most Americans support laws that clarify that Common Law, common-sense right. It empowers lawful people to defend themselves, and deters would-be murderers, rapists and robbers.
It’s a natural right: No law "gives" it or can take it away. It's yours. It works. And its only alternative-- the idea that distant, disinterested third parties can dictate after the fact that "you must retreat"--will never be accepted by the American people.
For these reasons, NRA will work to protect self-defense laws on the books, and advocate for their passage in those states that do not fully respect this fundamental right."
Deadly Force / Castle Doctrine:
Oregon is a Castle Doctrine state and does have a stand-your-ground law.
ORS 161.209-229. Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law “sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person’s use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape).”
http://www.usacarry.com/oregon_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/08/17/kids-handling-guns-at-santa-rosa-festival-prompts-criticism/
OMG OMG they let kids touch a [unloaded] gun!!! [in a supervised environment]
I guess liberals think it's far better that kids accidentally shoot each other than learn anything about gun safety (because guns are, you know, icky or something.)