( CNN ) -- As criminal attorneys , we know that tragic cases very often bring festering social issues into public view . Bill Cosby was right : The Trayvon Martin case brings to the surface troubling questions not only about race but also about the role of handguns in our society . Now that the shooter , George Zimmerman , has been charged with second-degree murder , his defense under Florida 's `` Stand Your Ground '' law will become the focus of discussion . This law is grounded in a factual error and a deeply flawed principle . The factual error is that a proliferation of handguns makes us safer . The flawed principle is that somehow the right to bear arms needs to be enlarged to a right to resolve disputes with guns . The notion that guns make us safer is a fallacy . People with guns in their homes are much more likely to be killed with their own gun -- by accident , domestic violence or suicide -- than to use it ever against an intruder , according to Arthur Kellermann , writing in the New England Journal of Medicine . Similarly , people who carry guns are more likely to be shot and killed than those who are unarmed . A University of Pennsylvania study found that people carrying guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed . That study 's author , Charles Branas , has speculated that one reason may be that guns give carriers a sense of empowerment that causes them to overreact in tense situations . That may be precisely what happened in the case of Zimmerman . Florida 's Stand Your Ground law changed the previous understanding of self-defense in a simple way . Traditionally , one could only claim self-defense if there was no reasonable chance to retreat from a situation where one felt threatened . The revised law says if you feel threatened with imminent great bodily harm , you may use force , including guns , against the person you find threatening , even if there is a reasonable opportunity to retreat . What this invites is the settling of personal disputes with guns , as evidenced by a 300 % increase in the number of killings by private citizens justified by `` self-defense '' in Florida since the law passed . Most murders involve young men , often as both shooter and victim , as in the Trayvon Martin case . Young men , of course , often get in conflicts where they are threatening one another : that is , where both of them are trying to scare the other with `` imminent great bodily harm . '' Florida 's law may allow one of those chest-bumping young men , without consequence , to end the mutual dispute by shooting the other dead on the street . When it is over , the only witness may be the shooter , and his version of events will presumptively control . There is no morality in this rule . Nothing in our Constitution even vaguely promotes the redress of grievances with guns ; the `` redress of grievances '' clause of the First Amendment has nothing to with the `` right to bear arms '' described in the Second Amendment . Rather , what the Constitution protects is the ability to redress our grievances by petitioning our government . There may be no more damning indictment of our society than this : We too often seem to be equipping our young men with the guns and excuses to kill one another , rather than the safe schools and knowledge it takes to frame a good and righteous petition . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writers .
Writers : `` Right to bear arms '' does not include a right to use guns in disputes . Gun owners most likely to be killed by their gun , writers say , and more likely to be shot . " Comment: The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or shooting animals ; it's about the people who wrote that amendment being able to own firearms for self - defense ( i.e. against government ). After a person is killed , the only witness may be the shooter , writers say .