A recent justified-self-defense shooting in Goldsboro, North Carolina, will not likely attract gun grabbers’ national outrage, at least not publicly. However, normal people should juxtapose this incident with the dubious portrayal of the George Zimmerman case. Doing so should uncover gun-control advocates’ shameless, dishonest, and opportunistic hypocrisy for many decent, gun-supporting people who remain duped by the malicious prosecution of George Zimmerman. Furthermore, this comparison might help to keep responsible gun owners safe and even affect other individuals’ perspectives on the politicians they support.

This past week in North Carolina, 28-year-old Paige Hamm heard something in her backyard. Looking out her window, Hamm noticed a lock on her shed was missing. Miss Hamm had her roommate dial 911 while Hamm armed herself with a firearm and went to investigate the situation.

This is the point at which every responsible gun owner vaguely familiar with the George Zimmerman case in Florida should recognize the problem. Not only did Hamm significantly increase the potential of physical danger to herself, but she also subjected herself to a potential life-destroying and legal nightmare.

Moving toward a threat when not absolutely necessary (as in your child is being harmed, for example) is not a victim’s best option. Generally, a victim should move away from a threat or potential threat whenever possible.

However, much like George Zimmerman, Paige Hamm did what a lot of ordinary people might have done. She unwittingly went toward a potential threat, and thus foolishly put herself at risk. Like George Zimmerman, Paige Hamm did not know where her potential threat was or whether that threat was armed when she left the safety of her initial location. Had her attacker been armed, her story might not have had a happy ending.

Of course, George Zimmerman did not notice a missing lock on a shed, he noticed a stranger in his neighborhood standing around in the rain. This individual happened to match the general description of suspects that had recently burglarized Zimmerman’s neighbors.

Thankfully, normal people are not vilifying Paige Hamm for noticing the missing lock on her shed, but George Zimmerman will probably always be demonized by many otherwise normal people for simply recognizing that his eventual attacker was not from his neighborhood and that the individual fit the description of the recent burglary suspects. Hardly a dubious observation.

Both Hamm and Zimmerman notified the cops while still in a safe location, but then foolishly moved toward the potential threats to investigate the situation by themselves.

[continues on next page]

The question at this point is, how many ordinary people might have done the same thing? Peering in to both these situations from the remote calm and safety of our computers and already knowing their outcomes, we might all easily recognize the questionable decisions both these victims made. However, caught up in the moment, our own thinking might not be so clear. Consequently, mentally planning for similar scenarios beforehand can help keep us safe.

Like Hamm, Zimmerman suddenly discovered that the potential threat he reported was a real and violent one. But unlike Hamm, who neutralized the threat before her assailant was able to inflict any physical harm to her, Zimmerman quickly found himself on his back, still under assault with no opportunity to escape. Impeded by the sidewalk against his back, the media’s misleading commentary of Zimmerman and Stand Your Ground laws (SYG) should be obvious. SYG simply removes a victim’s duty to retreat, but retreat was not an option. Zimmerman was literally trapped, pinned to the sidewalk. He began yelling for help repeatedly before drawing his firearm to stop the threat.

The controversy regarding who was yelling for help is absurd How many males yell for help when they are pummeling another individual into the cement? It just doesn’t happen, unless the aggressor is taunting the victim, perhaps. The evidence that Zimmerman was on his back being beaten is irrefutable.

A reasonable question to ask is whether George Zimmerman instigated his defensive shooting by following his attacker? If he did, did Hamm not then instigate her own attack by going to investigate something suspicious. A victim’s poor judgement does not give a criminal the right to commit a brutal assault, rape, or murder.

Certainly, some Zimmerman critics will proclaim that, unlike Hamm, Zimmerman pursued his attacker after the police dispatcher instructed Zimmerman not to do so. But those assertions are easily dismissed because those individuals clearly do not know the facts of the case or simply do not care what the facts are. But like Zimmerman, did Hamm not pursue her unarmed attacker?

Decent people should see that Hamm had the right to defend herself with her gun, even though she was not yet in the same brutal predicament in which George Zimmerman found himself. While Zimmerman is a male, he has never had a reputation for physical prowess. The reality is that if it were not for their right to have legal firearms, both Hamm and Zimmerman could be dead, disfigured, or crippled today.

Law-abiding people need to stick together. We are not enemies. Our enemies are the allies of criminals who seek to take away our fundamental right to defend ourselves by infringing on the Second Amendment and imposing upon us the duty to retreat from criminal predators.

Race, gender, and political orientation are increasingly used to divide us by the same politicians who seek to impose more gun control laws. What if Paige Hamm did not have a gun? What if George Zimmerman himself were black? The hypocrisy of these politicians is repulsive and obvious to honest people. Decent, law-abiding people are at risk as long as anti-gun politicians are in office.

Politicians who seek to infringe on the Second Amendment are real threats. The best course of action is for all of us to move away from these threats. Unfortunately, personal pride can compel us to make foolish decisions.