August 21, 2013
Wednesday PM

The opposition to "Stand Your Ground " laws makes me wonder about those opposed. No part of any of these laws requires a person stand his ground, just as no part requires a person be armed.

So, is the opposition based on a desire on the part of the objectors to keep violent criminals safe? The person objecting is a violent criminal? The person objecting has a personal relationship with a violent criminal? None of that? So, exactly why the objection to people who go around hurting and killing people being in danger of being hurt or killed in return, especially when they are attacking elders, women, children, or the infirm? What is going on here?

I refer people to the "Expanded Homicide Data Table 8". (I draw this information from the table for 2005-2009. [Editor's note, no link provided] ) In each of those years, the number of murder victims known to be killed "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) is very close to twice the known number of those killed by someone using a rifle, yet it's somehow "Okay" to beat someone, much as Trayvon Martin was beating George Zimmerman?

Duane Hill
Ketchikan, Alaska

About: "Long time civil rights activist"

Representations of fact and opinions in letters are solely those of the author.
The opinions of the author do not represent the opinions of Sitnews.