I'm wondering what the pro-gun advocates think about the Boston Massacre?

[provis99]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_massacre

Here we have a case where a handful of soldiers, tasked with keeping public order, were attacked by a lynch mob intent on killing them. They used their guns to fire back in self-defense, killing five of the rioters. The soldiers were later acquitted by a colonial jury.

So do they take the side of the British, or the American patriots?

[petronius]

1. Isn't there a history forum or something, where this would be relevant?

:shrug:

[ileus]

2. wouldn't the anti gunners be happier to see citizens shot down by the military?

This really isn't much of a pro/anti gun event...the soliders defend themselves and it sparked a revolution.

[TheWraith]

3. Did you go to the Palin School of American History?

The crowd may have been unruly and violent, but it was in no way "a lynch mob intent on killing them." As evidenced by the fact that the incident was set off by one Private firing without authorization, not by the officer in command ordering defensive fire.

[Hoopla Phil]

4. Odd, the same thought accorded to me when reading that bit of revisionism.

[Francis Marion]

5. Colonial values forbade shooting Redcoats- first.

I'm sure you don't think that 'pro gun people' will automatically take the side of an armed party in any issue?

The Boston Massacre is remarkable that the shooting ended with the British volley. A few years later, Gage collected enough muskets after April 19, 1775 from Boston residents- one of the original Government gun confiscations- to equip an army. 1700 long arms, 600 pistols. From a Boston population of 16,000. That's just a count of the guns that actually got turned in.
source: http://www.jcs-group.com/military/war1775colonists/able-bodied.html

And yet, no redcoats were shot because of the Boston Massacre.

The remarkable restraint of the heavily armed Boston citizenry deserves note.

If fact, the day the War for Independence began on April 19, the British shot volleys of musket balls into Americans on two occasions- Lexington and the North Bridge- without having received an incoming volley first. Armed Americans were under orders not to shoot first.

'Do not fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.' John Parker to his company on April 19, 1775.

That would change between Concord and Lexington, though, at a place called Merriams Corner where the patriots took the Regulars under directed fire at every opportunity for the rest of that very long day.

So this pro-gun advocate sees saintly forbearance on the part of the Boston residents, even after having nearly a dozen people killed an injured by British soldiers.

By the way- lynch mob intent on killing? No. You don't bring snowballs to a gun fight. This was hardball colonial political theater for sure; there's basis for reasonable conclusion that the mob wanted anything more than embarrassment, with some added rough treatment, for these redcoats. Saints, no, but not a lynch mob.

[Glassunion]

6. Your post is not 100% accurate.

They were not all acquitted. Two of them were found guilty of manslaughter. They did however seem to me.. to get a very light sentence.

Personally, I feel that the jury's decision was correct. I share the opinion of John Adams on the matter...
From the link you provided; a journal entry of John Adams
March 5, 1773:
(The third anniversary of the Boston Massacre)
"The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right.
"This however is no Reason why the Town should not call the Action of that Night a Massacre, nor is it any Argument in favour of the Governor or Minister, who caused them to be sent here. But it is the strongest Proofs of the Danger of Standing Armies."