Trayvon Martin case also about guns By Jeanne Bishop and Mark Osler, Special to CNN April 16, 2012 -- Updated 1719 GMT (0119 HKT) A visitor looks at a Taurus revolver during the National Rifle Association's annual meeting Friday in St. Louis. 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 Disputes solved with guns, they say, and justifiable homicides tripled since Florida law enacted After a person is killed, the only witness may be the shooter, writers say Editor's note: Jeanne Bishop is a criminal defense lawyer in Cook County, Illinois. Mark Osler is professor of law at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota and a former federal prosecutor. (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. Jeanne Bishop Mark Osler 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. April 16, 2012 -- Updated 1237 GMT (2037 HKT) For all the talk about polarization and discord in Washington, Julian Zelizer says that both parties will have moderate candidates April 16, 2012 -- Updated 1847 GMT (0247 HKT) Edward J. McCaffery says that to tax the very rich, our government should turn to a progressive consumption tax. April 15, 2012 -- Updated 1543 GMT (2343 HKT) For 28 years, we've had a president from Harvard or Yale, and Bob Greene notes that Americans have never elected a Big Ten graduate to the White House. April 16, 2012 -- Updated 0201 GMT (1001 HKT) Mark Coker says the lawsuit against Apple and five publishers will end up harming those who write, publish, sell and enjoy e-books April 15, 2012 -- Updated 1406 GMT (2206 HKT) The death of Trayvon Martin has moved this generation of African-Americans in a way not seen in 40 years, Roland Martin says. April 14, 2012 -- Updated 2314 GMT (0714 HKT) Porochista Khakpour says that the TV series may seem insider, but its aesthetic realism provides an antidote to surreal reality shows. April 13, 2012 -- Updated 1838 GMT (0238 HKT) Mary Matalin says Hilary Rosen was right to apologize to Ann Romney but should have been given time to come to that judgment on her own.