As for the poll, the numbers don't surprise me at all.

That being said, this is one of those laws that is eminently easier to support in theory than it is in practice.

I'm not a big fan of guns, because I think that in general, having one, and even being taught how to use one, doesn't guarantee that it will be used intelligently; guns just don't make people smarter.  It's one thing to shoot at targets, but it's quite another to be in an adrenaline-charged situation and be able to make the right decisions.  

I'm not saying people don't have the right to defend themselves, they do.  And while claiming immunity under SYG is not a given, the problem I have with it is the expectation that people may have that they will find safe harbor in a SYG claim.  I understand and appreciate the 2nd Amendment, but in this day and age, I'm not sure it makes sense to make it easier to shoot people, and I think that's what SYG laws ultimately do.

I know plenty of people who own guns, but I don't know a single one of them that brags and swaggers like you do around the subject of shooting to kill.

Speaking only for me, there is no way that a firearm in the hands of soneone who's dying to use it makes any kind of sense; "trigger-happy" and "responsible gun ownership" do not go hand-in-hand.

Gun ownership is a recipe for disaster because guns are weapons & the average person does not need a weapon.

However, considering there are 90 guns per 100 people in this country, it appears average citizens feel the need to be locked & loaded.

I don't see how it could be invoked by Zimmerman as a defense. If I understand correctly, he asserts that Martin hit him, they got in a fight, and Martin eventually was on top of him, mounting him "MMA style."

If that's true, SYG doesn't matter. Typical self-defense doctrine demands that if you have an opportunity to leave, you must leave, rather than staying put and physically defending yourself. SYG gets rid of that leave-if-possible requirement. But if Martin was mounting him MMA style, he had no opportunity to leave. Anything prior to that point isn't relevant, as what matters is Zimmerman's intent when he fired the gun, not when he flagged down Martin.

It's what my former boss -- a state senator and retired Army officer's spouse with a gift for timely delivered salty language -- quite appropriately used to call "lawmaking by d*ck-swinging," back when she was chair of the Health & Human Services Committee in the State Senate.

When "Stand Your Ground" was introduced by the Republicans (and, to be honest, a couple conservative Democrats) in the Hawaii Legislature, we never even gave the bill a public hearing at the committee level.

Further, based upon my personal experience as a state legislative analyst and former chief clerk of the Judiciary Committee, it is my considered opinion that "Stand Your Ground" laws neither encourage responsible gun ownership, nor discourage irresponsible gunplay.

Rather, given the extensive public testimony I've reviewed from those state legislatures around the country where "Stand Your Ground" legislation WAS given a public hearing and in some instances even passed, it tends to offer those dim bulbs in our chandeliers a patently false sense of personal security, a legal justification that yes, carrying a gun somehow makes one safer.

Again, as we've probably already seen in some locales, this can possibly embolden some people to engage in risky behavior, which can further result in some rather wretched personal decision making.

As I've cited here time and again, statistics from the Centers for Disease Control show that those persons who tend to carry firearms on their person are many times more likely to be involved in a personal confrontation involving firearms, than those who do not pack heat. What part of that painfully obvious correlation do we not understand?

And if we're at all honest with ourselves, we'd admit forthrightly that "Shoot first -- ask questions later" more often than not leads to "Oops! My bad!" This, of course, provides little comfort to those individuals who wind up suffering the tragic consequences of our collective affinity for both gunplay and gunslinging.

Now, that's all I'll have to say on the subject, unless we deal with it as a proposed resolution during our State Democratic Convention in Waikiki this weekend, which begins this afternoon.

If an altercation ensued and the threatening individual was ultimately shot.

What are the legal and civil ramifications under SYG vs the previous Florida law.

My guess is that without SYG Henry would face serious civil and criminal risks for not retreating.

I recollect similar circumstances where a home owner was sued after shooting an intruder, at night in his home. Under existing law he was obligated to leave his home even though his family was sleeping in other rooms.

This was before the adoption of the castle doctrine in many locations.

Don't forget criminals. I can find neighborhoods with poverty, unemployment and hunger that do not have high crime rates.

Sorry to challenge your dogma. Do you have any proof of causative or is it just a correlation.

The first seems to be relatively easy to understand.  If it is claimed that certain acts were done in self defense, a hearing is held before a judge, who may decide to grant the defendant criminal and civil immunity if a preponderance of the evidence shows that the self defense claim is valid.