One of the problems with the "Stand Your Ground" laws is that those defending them always seem to see themselves as the ones making the stand and not as the innocent victims of the gun violence.
When someone begins defending George Zimmerman to me, I always respond with something to the effect of, "Yea, I guess if Trayvon Martin had been the one with the gun, he could have turned on the strange man following him, said he felt threatened and shot him in 'self-defense.'" Somehow, when I suggest that scenario, the whole idea of "Stand Your Ground" doesn't seem so enticing anymore. Could it be that they have never envisioned a black man as the one shooting the gun and an unarmed white man as the victim?
I thought the same thing last week when New York Congressman Michael Grimm, in a heated moment, threatened to hurl a reporter over a balcony for daring to question him about an ongoing federal investigation into alleged finance violations by his campaign.
Now suppose that reporter had been armed and had felt threatened by Grimm's behavior and comments. In the right wing mindset, would he not have been justified in pulling out his gun and shooting the congressman right then and there, no questions asked, no time for a cooling-off period to assess the actual threat? Somehow I doubt that, in this particular instance at least, Grimm would be so quick to make that case.
It's easy to be in favor of laws like that when you always see yourself as the righteous player in the scene. What many supporters never do is see themselves as the potential victim.