Why Isn't the Gun Nut Lobby Saying Trayvon Martin Should Have Been Armed?
Now here's a good question:
Think about it. Every other situation in which an innocent person gets gunned down there is a cacophony of gun nuts screeching that if only this person had been armed he could have defended himself. It's been the basis of every concealed and open carry argument for the last couple of decades.
And yet, in this case, nothing. No impassioned appeals for loosening the gun laws so that ordinary Americans could go to the store in the evening to buy some candy and an iced tea without getting stalked and shot by some unhinged vigilante. No solemn op-eds about the dangers for average Americans when venturing unarmed into the streets of their own neighborhoods. No fiery speeches from Wayne LaPierre insisting that if only everyone in the neighborhood had been armed with submachine guns they could have run outside and started firing immediately upon hearing the screams for help. Nada. Why do you suppose that is?
Update: Last night I saw Zimmerman's friend on CNN defending him in a very revealing way:
During an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper on AC360, Taaffe said that a problem could have been avoided if Martin had been "up front and truthful" with Zimmerman.
I guess it has escaped him that in America it isn't a capital offense to refuse to answer a stranger's questions on the street. In fact, the kid had a right to tell this self-appointed "watchman" to go fuck himself if he wanted. Why under Florida law he would have been completely justified in killing the guy under those circumstances, right?
This friend has also said that he'd do the same thing in Zimmerman's place. Even now. Luckily for other kids in that neighborhood, this vigilante doesn't carry a weapon.