On Zimmy's statement to the court

[nadinbrzezinski]

It reveals the underside of the culture. When he said, "I thought Trayvon was slightly younger than me, and did not know if he was armed," he revealed a dirty secret for all those who carry concealed.

If you carry concealed, and you are a cop and you assume everybody you come in contact with you is armed... potentially, well that is training and it makes some sense. In training they are told assume everybody could be a danger to you. Treat all like the Mayor, but be on your guard.

But if you are a civilian and you carry concealed you start thinking everybody you meet is armed... that is when things get out of whack since you do not have the training a police officer should have. You may know in theory, perhaps, what the escalation of force matrix is.. but in reality you really do not, nor are trained to do silly shit like follow up, and things like that.

But think about it... if you are armed... stands to reason everybody else is. This is a hell of a cultural imperative which destroys all sense of potential community.

Yes, that is a problem... a serious problem. But this has been bugging me, what all this carry concealed is doing. One stat I heard over the weekend, and no, have not bothered to confirm it, but if even close, points to this problem even better. If you go to a theater in the state of Florida to watch a movie, an average sized theater, and it is full... twenty of your fellow theater goers ARE indeed packing.

Now let's assume for a second this is the case... and this stat is correct... think about that for a second. A place that I go for entertainment, might become the Hollywood version of Dodge City on the drop of a dime. Hell, at least to me it makes going to the theater less than appealing at this point.

And this is what it is doing to society, we are becoming paranoid... and it is not really paranoia. The person in front of you at the supermarket might be packing... that will go a long way to create community, really.

Why his statement really bugged me... divide and conquer has taken on a new dangerous turn.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. "Becoming paranoid". The country is awash in pure fear of the 'other'.

I think this promotion of fear for the last 25 to 40 years, is the main reason that we are no longer functioning as a country, but as 318 million individuals, distrusting everybody who isn't exactly like us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Yeah I know...

and this has other dangers too... we are, I have said it before, in the middle of a cold civil war.

[Hugabear]

3. Get ready for the CCW fans to rip this thread apart

A place that I go for entertainment, might become the Hollywood version of Dodge City on the drop of a dime.

We hear the arguments all the time: But CCW holders are law-abiding citizens and do not commit crimes, places that allow CCW are safer, blah blah blah"


Except for the little fact that Zimmerman was a "law-abiding citizen" at the time he murdered Trayvon.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Oh I expect it.

I used to carry a rescue knife everywhere I went to as a paramedic... since I used it in well Rescue... it was a long blade, we still have it. It is dang useful when we go hiking.

I get a police officer packing all the time.

A FEW CCW holders have more than enough reason to not just qualify but pack at all times... but the number of these issued is well above actual need.

[hack89]

12. No we won't - there are so many examples of spontaneous mass shoot outs in theaters

that we dare not challenge the notion .... oh wait.

[magical thyme]

5. which makes it all the more stupid that he got out of his car and followed Trayvon

and all the more likely that he had his gun drawn, or reached for his gun not cell phone like he claims. He likely anticipated that Trayvon was armed and behaved accordingly.

He also claimed under oath that Trayvon had him pinned to the ground and tried to smother him. (While he was screaming for help?)
And that he managed to scoot away and shoot him from a short distance (From flat on his back pinned down to scooting away? Really? I'd like to see him demonstrate that move...)

And of course, in his taped 911 call he described Trayvon as a teenager. It is only in hindsight, weeks later, that Trayvon suddenly appeared "slightly younger" than he is.

Media nonsense aside, I suspect his brief testimony opened more holes in the defense than anything in the prosecution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Agreed, I think they opened a few holes

since his statements are NOT consistent with what he told the cops that night. Or for that matter the tapes

That said, I am taking his statements as to what they reveal about the culture, and not the holes opened in the case.

If I am packing, I am going to assume so are you.

[magical thyme]

17. that's more than culture I think

it's also psychology. We all tend to judge and evaluate through our own tinted glasses.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Absolutely

why cops are trained, but most folks packing otherwise are not.

[HooptieWagon]

27. And he lied when he said he thought Martin was older.

In the 911 call he describes him as an older teen. Both statements can be used in court, and if Im the prosecutor Id get all Zimmermans inconsistant statements and lies in front of the jury to attack Zs credibility.

[Life Long Dem]

6. Zimmerman's side will tell you his gun saved his life.

I'm not on Zimmerman's side, I'm just saying guns can save life's too, if someone like Zimmerman was actually telling the truth.

[Hugabear]

7. And everyone else will tell you Zimmerman should have never gotten out of his damned car

There was absolutely no need for him to confront Trayvon.

[Life Long Dem]

8. No shit Sherlock.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. They can and they do

very rarely, more rarely than the guns save lives crew will admit. I will hazard to say my rescue knife saved a few more. Oh and it is a deadly weapon as well if you wanted to use it that way.

[A Simple Game]

20. I remember that logic...We had to destroy the village to save it.

Now we say I had to kill the kid so I could save him.

Made perfect sense then, makes perfect sense now. NOT.

[freshwest]

9. Fear is an adrenaline high, an addiction. When it cycles down, one needs another fix to feel alive.

So it seeks out another cause, no matter how unreal, to get back into that game. The conspiracy theorists and the media are the suppliers. It gives a sense of purpose after the trouble is over, a justification of whatever one does.

Reality is more disturbing without that rush, so some avoid the let down and having to look in the mirror of what their lives really are composed of without it. When one comes back to Earth, one might feel small, powerless and not so special. IMHO.

Interesting thread, there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. What is funny is that this drug, and yes it is a drug, it is an adrenalin high

looses it's appeal if you have been in a few life or death situations, as in the real deal.

At least for most people I know it does. Incidentally at least for me, media generated fear is funny to me at this point.

[99Forever]

14. A variation of something I was thinking.

I'm sure you've heard this sick meme:

"An armed society is a polite society."

Even if it were true, which the reality today seems to suggest quite the oppsite, it makes me nauseous that this kind of mentality even makes it out of the gate. I don't "respect" someone just because they are armed with a deadly weapon, I respect those that treat others with respect. I am polite to people I respect and try to avoid those that are armed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Yup, I have heard this

NRA material. And societies have controlled access to state of the art weaponry for different reasons across the ages....which also defeats that one. This includes the historical Dodge City by the way.,

[arely staircase]

31. "An armed society is a polite society."

sure, take the Ivory Coast or Afghanistan for example.

i have alway found that one particularly stupid.

[spin]

16. Strange. I have a Concealed Weapons Permit and I don't think that everybody I see is armed.

From your post, I suspect that you are the person suffering from paranoia.

Yes, that is a problem... a serious problem. But this has been bugging me, what all this carry concealed is doing. One stat I heard over the weekend, and no, have not bothered to confirm it, but if even close, points to this problem even better. If you go to a theater in the state of Florida to watch a movie, an average sized theater, and it is full... twenty of your fellow theater goers ARE indeed packing.

Now let's assume for a second this is the case... and this stat is correct... think about that for a second. A place that I go for entertainment, might become the Hollywood version of Dodge City on the drop of a dime. Hell, at least to me it makes going to the theater less than appealing at this point.

And this is what it is doing to society, we are becoming paranoid... and it is not really paranoia. The person in front of you at the supermarket might be packing... that will go a long way to create community, really.

How many reports have you read in the news of a theater in Florida suddenly erupting in gunfire? What's the big deal about being in line at a grocery store behind a person with a legally concealed weapon? If the weapon is properly concealed you should have no reason to suspect that the other shopper is armed.

I wonder if it is only you who is running around thinking everybody near you is armed.

Calm down. While it is true that over 800,000 Floridians currently have concealed weapons permits, only 168 carry permits have been revoked since 1987 for the commission of a crime involving the use of a firearm. (source http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf) Not all those "crimes" involved a shooting.

Realistically your chances of getting shot by an individual who has a Florida Concealed Carry license is far less than your chances of getting hit by lightning.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. And per schedule HI

I am not paranoid, at all. But if you want to live in a society where everybody is armed, let's stop the pretension, let's pass laws where ALL citizens over 18 are FORCED to carry. That would be an ideal society. For the record one town actually passed a law to this effect a few years back. Some folks moved out of the town. No, they did not force people to carry, but they were told you live here, you need to own a firearm.

I prefer to live in a society, and thankfully I live closer to that ideal, where you do not need to fear people packing that much.

There are SOME CCW permits that are not just justified but needed, and if you have received a bona fide death treat, by all means you quality. But most CCW permits are not even close to that standard. If you have a bona fide and PROVABLE fear for your life... by all means. As in current threat, not possible threat, not playing hero or wanting to either.

If you are an active law enforcement officer, or a retired one, by all means. There are more than just valid reasons.

If you do not meet either of those standards... yup it is ridiculous.

And for the record ONCE I could have qualified for one... as in a real life possible threat... I CHOSE to decline it.

[zappaman]

22. Just curious, since you are an ex-cop.

Can you get a license to carry?
Does it matter what state you are in?
As an ex-cop, do you think of everyone as armed?
When you were a cop, did you have that mindset?

Just curious since I don't know any ex-cops...

[spin]

24. We can argue about who is the most paranoid all day ...

Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:46 PM - Edit history (1)

but I will merely point out that I am not concerned if the person in front of me in the grocery store is armed or if when I go to the movie, twenty other people may be legally armed. You on the other hand are.

Nor do I feel that everybody over 18 should be forced to carry. That's totally ridiculous as it would involve a compulsory requirement that our government doesn't have the right to impose. It would be like forcing everybody to exercise for an hour everyday and eat broccoli.

While it is true that some people do have good reason to carry a firearm as they have received a valid death threat or carry large sums of money, many other people who have no reason to fear an attack are victims every day. There have been numerous incidents where a person with a carry permit used his/her concealed weapon to stop a violent attack. Here's one example that happened in a church (a place many who post here feel that there never could possibly be a reason to carry a concealed handgun).

Sheriff: Man kicks in church side door, points shotgun
Published: Sunday, March 25, 2012 at 4:18 p.m.

***snip***

Henry Guyton said he was in the pulpit, preaching about how Jesus spoke the word of God and healed the sick, when Gates kicked open the side door of the sanctuary and entered with the shotgun, pointing it at the pastor and congregation.

Church members, including Aaron Guyton, a concealed weapons permit holder, acted quickly.

Aaron Guyton held Gates at gunpoint, as church members Jesse Smith and Leland Powers held him on the floor and waited for deputies to arrive. The Rev. Guyton said he stepped onto a chair, climbed down a 3-foot bannister surrounding the pulpit and took the shotgun from Jesse Gates.

***snip***

Aaron Guyton said he's had a concealed weapons permit since 2009, and usually keeps his gun in the car during church. But after Gates showed up at the church the first time, Aaron Guyton said he decided to keep the gun in his back pocket the rest of the morning. He says he couldn't believe he almost had to use his gun inside the church he's attended all of his life. But he says he would have shot Gates to protect his grandparents, 8-year-old sister and 7-week-old cousin if his grandfather, whom he calls “Pops,” hadn't been able to jerk the shotgun out of Gates' hand.
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120325/ARTICLES/120329781/1112?template=printart

Or this story where your proposed requirement that only people with a valid reason to carry are allow to do so might have led to the death of a woman.

'Drop it, or I'll shoot you'
Tim Patterson stepped in when attacker held knife to woman's throat
Posted: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:15 am | Updated: 11:53 pm, Tue Dec 6, 2011.


Tim Patterson, owner of The Big Yellow Mobile Kitchen, demonstrates Tuesday how he stopped the armed robbery of a Goodwill employee by brandishing his pistol and aiming it at the suspect during the Monday afternoon incident in Coeur d'Alene.

***snip***

Tim rushed out the back door of The Big Yellow mobile kitchen at the corner of Harrison and Fourth. He looked around the Goodwill parking lot full of cars, and heard another scream. Then, he heard a woman's voice.

"Let go of me," it shrieked.

Patterson charged around a car and stopped. A man had a woman's head pulled back with one hand, and a knife to her throat with the other.

Patterson didn't hesitate.

He drew his Kimber 1911 .45 with a six-shot clip.

"Drop it, or I'll shoot you," he shouted.

The assailant, wearing a hoodie that covered his face, glanced up. He immediately let go of the woman, dropped the knife, raised his arms in the air and fled.
http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_21155766-d172-5cf3-8425-f047f2692a66.html?mode=story

Here's another story where limiting a person's right to have a concealed carry permit based on need might have resulted in a tragedy.

MAN’S CONCEALED HANDGUN SAVES HIM AND HIS DOG
When 3 pit bulls stage surprise attack
May 22, 2011

***snip***

Kirkland Police said Lewis, who was legally carrying the firearm as a concealed carry permit holder, was playing catch with his 3-year-old German shepherd across from Juanita Bay Park, in the 9700 block of NE Juanita Drive in an area where a Seattle man had his three unleashed pit bulls nearby.

Out of the blue said Lewis the three pit bulls charged and began attacking his dog.

Both Lewis and the pit bulls’ owner fought to stop the attack and at one point thought they may have stopped it but then the three pit bulls suddenly attacked again both Lewis and his dog and that is when Lewis, fearful for his own life and his dog's life, drew his handgun and fired, hitting and wounding one of the dogs and scaring off the others.

***snip***

One report on the attack, by KOMO-TV Seattle, quoted a nearby witness as saying the attack was so ferocious that if Lewis hadn’t had the gun he would probably be dead.
http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/MAN-S-CONCEALED-HANDGUN-SAVES-HIM-AND-HIS-DOG-br-When-3-pit-bulls-stage-surprise-attack-668700

You also expressed concern about a customer in the checkout lane at a grocery store with a legally concealed handgun.

And finally an incident in a waffle house:

edited for typos

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Neither am I, but I do not live in a state where my chances

that a perfect stranger is packing is actually higher than being hit by lightning. No, you cannot make the argument you made given the number of CCWs issued in YOUR STATE.

Nor do I intend to move to one either. And those stories can be countered by situations like George Zimmernan, who was mind you a law abiding citizen, and who WOULD HAVE LOST HIS CCW in MY STATE, the first time he got a restraining order.

That IS rational.

But really, these situations are extremely rare as in so rare, that indeed lighting does come to mind.

Now once again, if you have had a real threat to your life, by all means. If not, you really do not need a CCW... and in a MORE RATIONAL SOCIETY where the NRA did not have the pull it has, you would not. Nor would you feel you need to pack.

Oh and I am willing to bet I have used my first aid skills far more often than you have your side arm... and in two cases it may have saved somebody's life, the fact that I knew something about that. One was CPR, the other was the Heimlich maneuver...

I consider EMT or First Aid training far more valuable. Sorry if that bugs you.

And yes my dear, I was told by an FBI agent that he highly recommended I did get a gun, training and a CCW due to some of the real life characters I did transport... as in they had actionable intelligence that this may be advisable.

I chose to take my chances... and I thanked the agents for their very real, as in very real concerns. Perhaps this is the case since I KNOW for real what bullets do to people when entering a body at high rates of speed... and cavitation and follow through are NOT theory. Hell, we have guns these days... and I am the worst shot you could ever meet. We concluded it is because of that little factoid. Yup, this is a round target, not even a humanoid form... and I still cannot bring myself to do it.

By the way that is the kind of situation where a CCW makes sense, as long as that threat is actionable, not a second after.

[Codeine]

40. As an ex-cop you should still qualify for one.

Would you still decline your right to carry as a former cop?

[99Forever]

21. Do me a favor, would you?

Stay out of my home and my neighborhood, just in case you aren't actually what you say you are. I don't care to learn the hard way or have my kids or grandkids learn the hard way, just as Trayvon and his family learned, that you really shouldn't be allowed to ccw.

[spin]

25. Since you live in Minnesota and I live in Florida ...

and I have absolutely no reason to visit your state, you don't have to worry about me ever being in your neighborhood. If I did, Minnesota does not recognize a Florida Concealed Weapons permit. Therefore I would not be carrying my handgun.

If you don't visit Florida we should never cross paths. Even if you do decide to vacation in Florida you will no reason to fear that anyone with a carry permit will shoot you unless you decide to attack them with the intention of putting them in a hospital or six feet under.

[LanternWaste]

28. Or, as has been recently illustrated, if you are a young...

"no reason to fear that anyone with a carry permit will shoot you unless you decide to attack them with the intention of putting them in a hospital or six feet under..."

Or, as has been recently illustrated, if you are a young, black male walking home to watch a basketball game...

[spin]

29. What you fail to realize is that I am not Zimmerman ...

who is a aberration among those in Florida who have Concealed Weapons Permits. Currently over 800,000 Floridians currently have concealed carry licenses. Since 10/011987 when "shall issue" concealed carry became legal in Florida the state has issued a total of 2,167,283 carry permits.

During that 24 year + period of time, only 168 permits have been revoked due to the commission of a crime involving the use of a firearm after the license was issued. (source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf and http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_active.pdf)

Of course you can refuse to ignore the statistics which are typical of states that allow "shall issue" concealed carry such as Texas or you can chose to believe what the media tells you. The media will tell you that the Florida concealed weapons program and the stand your ground law has turned Florida into the "Wild West" with licensed vigilantes running around the streets with a license to kill.

I realize that it is far more fun to believe the media who has told you in the past that Glock pistols are made totally of plastic and can be used by criminals and terrorists to bypass X-ray machines.

The introduction of the Glock lead to incorrect reports by the media claiming that the polymer composition of the gun's frame would render it invisible to metal detectors and airport X-ray machines,[16] a belief which was also echoed in the movie Die Hard 2.[17] These incorrect portrayals of the Glock pistol exposed the gun to a great deal of publicity, invariably leading to an increase of sales.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock

You also would have got the impression that Teflon coated bullets are designed to penetrate the vest wore by police officers.

In 1982, NBC ran a television special on the bullets (against the requests of many police organizations) and argued that the bullets were a threat to police. Gun control organizations in the U.S. labeled Teflon-coated bullets "cop killers" because of the supposedly increased penetration the bullets offered against ballistic vests, a staple of the American police uniform. Many erroneously focused on the Teflon coating as the source of the bullets' supposedly increased penetration, rather than the hardness of the metals used. A common misconception, often perpetuated by films and television, is that coating normal bullets with Teflon will give them armor-piercing capabilities. In reality, Teflon and similar coatings were used primarily as a means to protect the gun barrel from the hardened bullet; the coating itself does not add any measurable armor-piercing abilities to otherwise normal ammunition.

The round in question could, in fact, penetrate a police vest. However, as Kopsch pointed out in a 1990 interview, "adding a teflon coating to the round added 20% penetration power on metal and glass. Critics kept complaining about teflon's ability to penetrate body armor... In fact, teflon cut down on the round's ability to cut through the nylon or kevlar of body armor." [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet

And of course the media keeps publishing stories about the "high powered" assault rifle that is far more deadly than your father's hunting rifle because it resembles the fully automatic assault rifles used by the military.

This police officer debunks that myth:

I only mentioned three examples of how the media misleads its audience about issues involving firearms.

All I can say is that while it is true that people with concealed carry permits are not angels, statistics show that we are, when compared with other groups of individuals (including police officers), unusually law abiding and responsible citizens.

[99Forever]

30. I see...

.. my family and I should refrain from visiting "your" state so that you feel "secure" carrying your surrogate penis for "protection?" That about cover it?

BTW, I'd venture to guess that Mr Zimmerman probably would have expressed similar "thoughts" to yours if asked. Trayvon Marten experienced the real world results of 2nd Amendment trumps all others mentality. Save it for the NRA manly men, would you please?

[AmazingSchnitzel]

32. Feel free to visit...

...

I just don't think it reasonable to expect other people to change their personal preferences to suit your bias against guns.

I don't think everyone is armed when I carry, which is everywhere I am allowed, but I do guess that maybe 8-10% are (depending on which state I happen to be in at the time.)

Personally, I am the type that would rather carry for the next 60 years of my life and never fire a shot than wish I had it that one time I could have protected myself, my family or someone I pass who is in trouble. That is my personal responsibility that I have taken on and I wouldn't force it on anyone and expect the same in return.

[spin]

33. Welcome to DU. (n/t)

[AmazingSchnitzel]

38. Thanks..

[spin]

35. Reading skills are fundamental ...

Carefully read what I said once more:

If you don't visit Florida we should never cross paths. Even if you do decide to vacation in Florida you will have no reason to fear that anyone with a carry permit will shoot you unless you decide to attack them with the intention of putting them in a hospital or six feet under.

Where in that comment did I suggest that you avoid visiting Florida? I merely said that if you didn't our paths should never cross and that even if you you do vacation here, you have nothing to fear unless you attempt to seriously injure or kill a legally armed Floridian without reason. In fact if you have a far greater chance of being hit by lightning in Florida than ever being shot by a Floridian with a Concealed Weapons Permit.

I always find it humorous when someone on your side of a firearm discussion resorts to insulting gun owners over their penis size as it shows me that they realize that their argument is weak and inadequate.

edited for typo

[99Forever]

36. My "reading skills" are just fine, bud,...

.. yours are quite selective. Trayvon Marten didn't "attack them with the intention of putting them in a hospital or six feet under" and died anyway, at the hands of one of your "reasonable" LICENSED CCW manly man brethren, so as far as I'm concerned you would be better served selling your wild west philosophy to a MUCH more gullible person than myself. I ain't buyin' it.

[spin]

37. Let's look at some facts and statistics ...

Florida passed "shall issue" concealed carry in 1987.

Since 1987 Florida has issued 2,167,283 Concealed Weapons Permits. Currently 919,831 are valid. 106,496 of these permits are held by people who live outside of Florida.

During the twenty four years that this law has been in effect only 168 permits have been revoked for a crime involving the use of a firearm committed after the license was issued.

sources:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_active.pdf

Not all of the 168 license that were revoked involved a shooting. Unfortunately the state doesn't provide statistics on why the licenses were recalled.

It should be obvious that "shall issue" concealed carry has not turned Florida into the Wild West that Hollywood imagines.

In my opinion at this time and with the information that I have been able to glean from the news, I feel that Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter. However I believe in our legal system and refuse to replace it with trial by the media. I am glad that Zimmerman has been arrested and may change my views on his guilt as I find out more of the evidence that will be released during the proceedings. If it is true that Zimmerman left his vehicle after being instructed by dispatch to not continue to follow Martin, I feel he is guilty of escalating the situation and had he not done so, the situation would have ended peacefully.

While it is true that people who have been licensed to carry concealed are an amazingly law abiding and responsible group as a whole, they are not all angels. While one Zimmerman gains attention, the many times that a licensed carrier of a firearm uses his/her weapon for totally legitimate self defense are totally ignored by the national media and at the best only receive occasional local media attention.

Did you hear anything about this story on national news?

Man buys knife, stabs 2 at Salt Lake City store
April 26th, 2012 @ 7:45pm

SALT LAKE CITY — A man stabbed two people at the Smith's Marketplace grocery store in downtown Salt Lake City before being subdued by a bystander.

The attack took place around 5:30 p.m. in the parking lot of the store at 455 S. 500 East.

According to a witness, it appears one man was stabbed in the side of the head and another was stabbed in the stomach. The exact condition of the victims is unknown, but police believe the injuries are very serious and possibly critical.

Police say a bystander with a concealed carry permit witnessed the attack and stepped in to keep it from escalating.emphasis added
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=20161608&title=man-stabs-2-at-salt-lake-city-store-witness-subdues-attacker&s_cid=featured-1

The media which definitely has a bias against concealed carry often publishes the view that all people who have permits to carry are bloodthirsty vigilantes looking for any opportunity to blow another person away. The fact that none of the states that has passed "shall issue" concealed carry has repealed the law is proof of the fact that the media lacks the power that it imagines that it has.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148250/americans-regain-confidence-newspapers-news.aspx

One of the explanations of the lack of confidence in the media is their distortions of the facts on issues relating to gun control. There are 80,000,000 firearm owners in our nation that have a good to excellent knowledge of firearms.
When the media portrays a semi-auto firearm used in a crime as a fully automatic military class weapon, these gun owners immediately see the lie and resent it. They realize that if the media can't be trusted to correctly report the facts on an issue as simple as firearms, why should they be trusted to report the truth about far more complicated issues.

We do live in a free country and you have every right to believe whatever you wish and if you wish to consider all the people who have concealed carry permits in Florida to be part of a "LICENSED CCW manly man brethren" it is your choice. Obviously you are ignoring the fact that many women in Florida have concealed carry permits.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_holders.html

I don't claim that all those who have carry permits in Florida never misuse their firearms. I would simply like to point out that as a group we are unusually responsible and crime free. In fact a higher percentage of police officers misuse their weapons to commit crime than do those with carry permits.

[99Forever]

39. Facts and statistics...

... don't kill people, but irresponsible idiots with vigilante attitudes and guns do. For the third time, find someone else to sell your crap to, I'm not buying. Other citizens right to life trumps your right to strap on a deadly weapon. I don't give a hoot if you do or don't agree. Is that clear enough, yet?

[AmazingSchnitzel]

41. It's the equivalent of admitting you are wrong...

... when you say that facts don't matter and your feelings trump everything else.

[spin]

43. Exactly. (n/t)

[99Forever]

46. That isn't what I said..

... but don't let that stop you from running your game.

[spin]

42. Like many who oppose concealed carry ...

you use emotion to support your argument.

When one person who has a carry permit is accused rightly or wrongly of murdering an innocent person and it attracts national media attention, you stereotype ALL 800,000 people who have carry permits in Florida as similar to him and insinuate that we are all quite possibly bloodthirsty vigilantes.

You state:

"Other citizens right to life trumps your right to strap on a deadly weapon."

Do you believe that I have no right to defend myself from an unprovoked attack from an individual who intends to put me in the hospital for an extended stay or six feet under? You do believe that your "right to life" trumps my right to defend myself if truly necessary.

Admittedly some among us have the experience and the training to have some chance even while unarmed to stop an attack from an individual who has a knife or a gun or is physically much larger or in far better shape. The reality is that the legal possession of a concealed weapon and the skill to use it may be the most effective means available to stop such an attack for the majority of those who find themselves in serious danger.

While incidents where people who legally carry a concealed weapon and use it for legitimate self defense do not receive the attention that the Martin shooting has generated, they do happen on a frequent basis. While anecdotal, I personally know of two incidents that involved fellow co-workers who successfully stopped an attack. In both cases, the mere fact that my co-workers were armed caused the attacker to reconsider his actions and walk away. No shots were fired, no blood was shed.

I have admitted that when a state allows as many as 800,000 citizens to legally carry a concealed weapon there will be and have been some incidents where a person misuses that privilege and the results can be tragic. If this was a common everyday occurrence, I would consider supporting a movement to repeal the law. I have presented statistics to support my contention while you have presented only emotion.

Do you feel any sympathy for those who are attacked on a daily basis in Florida or their families when they end up in a hospital or dead? Can you not at least admit that incidents where the presence of a legally concealed firearm stops a violent attack, even if the attacker is shot, are far superior to those in which an innocent person is a victim of a violent crime and suffers serious injury or death?

The right of self defense has a long history dating back to the early days of civilization. I have no idea if you are religious or not and while few Christians would consider me to be one of their flock, I found it interesting when I read this passage in Bible:

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

A sword was the concealed handgun of those days and if you have any knowledge of how deadly a sword is, you would realize that at close range it is far more effective than the handguns normally carried by people today.

But it might be wiser to look at our own history and look for legal support for self defense.

Self-defense (United States)

In the United States, the defense of self-defense allows a person to use reasonable force in his or her own defense or the defense of others (see the theoretical background for why this is allowed).

While the definitions vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of non-deadly and deadly force. A person may use non-deadly force to prevent imminent injury, however a person may not use deadly force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious injury or death. Some states also include a duty to retreat (exceptions include Louisiana and Florida), when deadly force may only be used if the person is unable to safely retreat. A person is generally not obligated to retreat if in one's own home in what has been called the castle exception (from the expression "A man's home is his castle&quot .

Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52, is one of the earliest cases to strongly support and establish in U.S. law an individual's right to initiate self-defense actions up to and including the justifiable use of lethal force against an aggressor.

In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_%28United_States%29

You might notice that not only did this early decision support the right of self defense but it also supports stand your ground law.

I am fully aware that I am not going to change your views but I come to DU for the fun of the debate on many issues. While I am a progressive and liberal Democrat, I differ from many as I support many firearm related issues such as the right to keep and bear arms and licensed concealed carry.

I've enjoyed our discussion and while we disagree, I will be happy to continue and present my views to counter yours. If you honestly feel:

I don't give a hoot if you do or don't agree. Is that clear enough, yet?

the simple solution is not to reply to my posts. While I respect your opinions, I feel they are foolish and illogical. Perhaps if you honestly consider my viewpoint, you will realize that you need to do some research and respond with a better argument. If you do, I look forward to your reply as there are excellent points to be made on both sides of the issue.

[riderinthestorm]

23. Human nature being what it is, I actually agree with this. Good point Nadin nt

[Baitball Blogger]

34. How do we protect ourselves from this group of people who are now walking

around armed, and in a state of heightened vigilance?

There's a major disconnect around here. They have the fucking gun. That should calm them. Instead, they're becoming vigilantes.

[spin]

44. Over 800,000 citizens have concealed weapons permits in Florida ...

and while a percentage do walk around carrying their weapons everywhere that is legal, I would point out that if all were "becoming vigilantes" we would see far more incidents similar to the Martin shooting.

I personally know a good number of people who have carry permits in Florida and let me assure you that everyone that I know that has a permit realizes that we are not cops nor are we vigilantes. We carry for the very unlikely event that we find ourselves under an unprovoked attack by an individual who has every intention of putting us in a hospital for an extended stay or six feet under.

Realistically if a large number of Floridians who have a carry permit are turning into vigilantes, we would be reading of at least one if not many news reports about incidents similar to the Martin shooting that have happened recently.

Let me assure you that the media is more than willing to publicize such stories while they also will ignore any incidents in which a person with a concealed weapons permit stopped any attack by using legitimate self defense. At the best a story that would show any value to concealed carry will only make local headlines or will rarely make national news.

[Baitball Blogger]

45. Who is going to be left alive to define if an attack is provoked?

Maybe the world is ripe for all these government cams staring us down. I wouldn't have thought it necessary, but maybe it will make people with concealed weapons hesitate just long enough for us to figure out they have guns so we can chose to have nothing to do with them--at all.

[spin]

47. I walk by cameras all the time ...

and none make me hesitate.

Why should they. I am doing nothing illegal by carrying a concealed firearm as I have a license to do so.

Somehow I feel that I am missing your point.

[Baitball Blogger]

48. You don't represent everyone who carries, do you spin?

So maybe you should stop trying to represent every George Zimmerman who lives in Sanford like cities.

[spin]

49. Zimmerman hardly represents the majority of people ...

who have concealed weapons permits. He is a rare anomaly.

We are not cops or vigilantes and we know it.

[Baitball Blogger]

50. Well, we don't know it.

And one death is one death too many. I don't care what the courts say.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Two things on this

and I know Spin don't see it this way.

1.- Some folks are very justified in having CCW permits. Among them are cops... retired cops, and anybody who has an actual real life threat that is actionable. As I told her above about oh 1992 I could have qualified for one of them under the real life threat situation, I chose to take my chances, there is more, it was advised by the FBI, not my local cops.

In that kind of a situation extensive fire arms training and escalation of force training should precede the issuing of that CCW, with a review of that real threat every two years and a gun qualification to go with it. I mean as extensive as the fifty hours a police officer receives at your local PD academy. No, you are not a cop, but damn it you are carrying a lethal weapon. You should be VERY FAMILIAR with those standards, as familiar as a cop, that is my opinion by the way.

2.- Right now the State of Florida is giving them away like candy. We were joking at this household that they almost come out of the Cracker Jacks box... it is philosophical. They are also NOT canceling them for rational reasons other states do, like I do not know... a restraining order. In the case of George Zimmerman it should have taken 48 hours, aka how it takes the paperwork, to be pulled off... after the order was issued by a judge. It should be like automatic and shit.

Final point, while a majority of CCW people are mostly going to walk away from a situation and not bring out their guns, when you give them away like candy, without all the bells and whistles that gunnies would never aprove off... again philosophical, you have a risk that you are giving them to a few people who under no circumstances should have them. Lax regulations means more will fall through them cracks.

Now I expect to see the statistics once again... but per those silly stats, I think what I saw in the weekend I mentioned in the OP is correct... 20 of my fellow movie goers in a full theater in Florida ARE packing. While a few might be unstable and decide to be a hero or settle a dispute with a gun... given they are being issued like candy, chances are higher than I am comfortable with. So if I ever went to visit, I think I will pass on going to a movie theater. Reality is at this point Florida is not even in the radar, but for other reasons, mostly budgetary.

And with all due respect to SPIN. your state is not following a rational gun policy no matter how much you feel they are... even Dodge City, like the REAL DEAL, knew better. They had gun control laws that would make the NRA have a stroke.

[spin]

53. If you you said was true ...

We would have far more situations like the Martin shooting in Florida happening on a daily basis.

How many shootings have occurred in a movie theater in Florida that were caused by a person with a concealed weapons permit since 1987 when "shall issue" concealed carry passed? My google-fu discovered a total of zero, perhaps you can do better.

It is often suggested that those who have concealed weapons permits are excessively paranoid. After reading many recent posts from those who oppose the issuance of such licenses, I find an amazing amount of irrational fear expressed. I get the impression that many are terrified to go anywhere because they might happen to be near a person who is legally carrying a firearm.

The fact remains that you have a much higher chance of getting hit by lightning in Florida than being shot by a person with a carry permit (assuming you are not attacking him with the intention of inflicting serious injury or causing death). I know several people who have been hit by lightning or a feeder bolt but not one of the many people that I know who have a concealed weapons permit has ever had to shoot another person. My ex-wife was getting in our car while holding an umbrella during a thunder storm and got zapped by a feeder bolt and had some nerve problems in her hand. My son in law was struck by lightning and knocked off his feet as were two co-workers that I know. Fortunately none of the people that I know who have experience the "thrill" of lightning were seriously hurt but an average of 9 people a year die because of lightning in Florida every year.

The news media will lead you to believe that Florida is the "Wild West" but statistics prove that while Florida does have a considerable amount of violence caused by firearms, only a tiny percentage is caused by people with carry permits acting irresponsibly with their weapons.

It is true that sometimes a person slips through the process, gets a carry permit and then causes a tragedy. It is also true that many people with carry permits successfully use their legal weapons for legitimate self defense. We are not all angels but realistically as a group we are far more responsible that other groups of citizens who own firearms. You mention that we should have equivalent training to that required for police but I will point out that police officers misuse their firearms more frequently than those with carry permits despite all their training.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Was George Zimmerman's permit pulled off when

he received a restraining order?

No.

Would my state do that? Yup, it is automatic.

It should be automatic in YOUR STATE too.

Live with it, not all of us agree that YOUR STATE, or a few others in the bible belt, in red america, captured by the NRA, are following rational gun policies.

But enjoy the capture by the NRA and their lackeys at ALEC

I am not being emotional, your next charge... just know that yes... lax gun regulation lead to trouble. And yes, there have been MORE SYG shootings IN YOUR STATE, since the law came into effect. The only trend upwards in gun violence.

Rising numbers of civilian justifiable homicides across the US are closely linked to states with both weak gun controls and stand-your-ground laws, according to a Guardian analysis of FBI and other data, which show a 25% increase in such killings since the controversial self-defence laws started being introduced around 2005.

Stand-your-ground (SYG) measures, which have attracted increasing scrutiny since the fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin by a neighbourhood watch volunteer in Florida, allow citizens to use deadly force when they believe their life is in danger, without requiring them to retreat or try to escape the threat first.

Florida was the first state to introduce an SYG law in 2005 and similar measures have now been adopted in some form by more than 20 states. Many were passed in 2006.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/05/justified-homicides-up-25-percent-since-states-passed-stand-your-ground-laws/

And these two opinions also reflect my real life experience when it comes to guns... and all that

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/30/opinion/nejame-guns-stand-your-ground/index.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Walter-Rodgers/2012/0430/Florida-style-Stand-Your-Ground-gun-laws-sub-impulse-for-intelligent-thinking

Have a wonderful day... stats are a *((^ on either side. I know... we can play this game all day. You are as emotional and attached to this, as you accuse others of being.

By the way SPIN, know I did not want a CCW? I KNOW what guns do...

This is not theory to me... at all. I transported in the course of ten years way too many people to the Trauma Center who met a small piece of metal flying at high rates of speed... some of them even died from it.

Granted I also encountered the more rare fist on face, or rock on face or knife and the far more popular ice pick. That does not mean I am a fan of lax gun laws. This little incident in Sanford brought the spotlight on it... and you know what? Bout bloody time.

Sorry if some of us can see the problems and actually not be emotional about it, but be cold about it. Lax laws and too many guns sooner or later lead to serious trouble. Don't believe me... what country around the world with lax laws do you want me to point to? There are several right now. There are several where there are laws in theory, but guns are as available as well butter and eggs, care to see the consequences of that culture?

As I like to say it, and I know it ain't popular, we are not exceptional. And yes Dodge City, not the NRA myth, the real deal, got it.

[spin]

56. Is the fact that JUSTIFIED shooting has increased 25% a terrible thing?

That statistic merely shows that more people were able to use a firearm for legitimate self defense and were able to escape serious injury or death.

It absolutely amazes me when the media is able to successfully portray incidents where firearms saves lives as evil.

The United States' concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law stands on the dividing line between an excuse, justification and an exculpation. It differs from other forms of homicide in that, due to certain circumstances, the homicide is justified as preventing greater harm to innocents. A homicide can only be justified if there is evidence to suggest that it was reasonable to believe that the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life or wellbeing of another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

To argue that justifiable homicide is wrong defies reason unless you believe that all self defense is undesirable. Is that what you believe? If so, it appears the media agrees with you. Indeed the pen is mightier than the sword when the media can convince people that legitimate self defense is a bad thing.

I will grant that the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida could have been worded better. The basic concept is valid but obviously the law is somewhat ambiguous and might well allow a person to escape prosecution in some incidents where no witnesses were available and the evidence was inconclusive. However the older law which required a duty to retreat suffered from the same basic problem. Without witnesses and evidence to the contrary, a person could simply claim that he did try to retreat and it would be impossible for the prosecution to prove otherwise. I expect the wording of the law will be reviewed and possibly changed but would it be fair to put a person in prison merely because of a lack of witnesses or evidence to prove that he failed to used legitimate self defense? That would require the jury to assume that he was guilty without evidence and would be totally against our system of justice in which a person is innocent until proven guilty. It is unfortunately a real conundrum.

There is a long history of legal rulings on self defense in our nation.

Self-defense (United States)

Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52, is one of the earliest cases to strongly support and establish in U.S. law an individual's right to initiate self-defense actions up to and including the justifiable use of lethal force against an aggressor.

In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_%28United_States%29

Obviously this ruling not only supported self defense but also "stand your ground".

I, like you, am well aware of what guns can do when misused. Unfortunately I recently experienced a personal loss involving an individual who used a handgun to commit suicide. Alcohol was involved.

Your third link does provide an interesting story with a good lesson.

Florida-style 'Stand Your Ground' gun laws sub impulse for intelligent thinking

***snip***

A large black man, big enough to play linebacker for the Chicago Bears, grabbed me by my coat, and slammed me against a concrete wall.

A Florida-style Stand Your Ground law would have explicitly entitled me to meet force with force without having to retreat first, if I believed it were necessary to prevent death or bodily harm to myself.

Breathing alcohol fumes on me, this huge man asked, “What did you think of my leader?”

“I thought Dr. King was a great man,” I answered. The poor fellow’s eyes welled with tears. He released me and shuffled off weeping.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Walter-Rodgers/2012/0430/Florida-style-Stand-Your-Ground-gun-laws-sub-impulse-for-intelligent-thinking

While it is possible that the "Stand Your Ground" law might have allowed the use of deadly force in this situation it is also possible that the writer would have faced prosecution. Much depends on the actual disparity in size and condition.

In the same situation, I would have attempted to defuse the situation as the writer did. If that failed, I might have used what remains of my martial arts training in jujitsu to attempt to stop his attack. I will not describe the technique I immediately thought of, but it is brutal and effective.

I am 65 years old and considered handicapped as I am a candidate for a hip replacement and also suffer from degenerative disc disease. Legally it would be foolish to attack me in such a manner, but still I would prefer to use non lethal force rather than use the firearm that I carry. I reserve that for situations that lack any other choice.

But if I was younger and in far better shape, a prosecutor in Florida might well decide that merely because I was slammed up against a wall, I had no reason to expect that my health or life was in danger. Much would depend on the difference in size and weight between myself and my attacker. I could point out that it is unwise to start a fight irregardless of the difference between you and your opponent.

I would like mention that despite the skyrocketing number of firearms in our nation and the spread of "shall issue" concealed carry we have actually experienced a decrease in violent crime that is now approaching the levels experienced in the 60s which was a fairly peaceful time. There are many factors to consider in why the violent crime level has dropped so dramatically, but it should be obvious that neither the proliferation of firearms or the passage of concealed carry laws has not caused the violent crime rate to rise.

Crime in the United States

In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).


source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Here is the problem you are having

if you and I have an argument, play with me for a second. You clear leather, and shoot me dead... and claim SYG... by your own laws it is justifiable.

Even if at no moment your life was actually endangered...

This is why am glad the Martin incident, yes it is a major incident. is bringing this discussion to the fore. And why these laws should be seriously reviewed. They do have some serious problems.

When you only have ONE side of the story every shooting can be justifiable and impossible, or next impossible to prosecute... why castle doctrine has it's place... so does legal review.

I know you cannot see this, that is fine... someday perhaps the insanity will end. Perhaps this will finally drive some sanity back into the discussion.

By the way, you carefully avoided the fact that Mr. Zimmerman should have lost his CCW after he received the restraining order. In fact, he should not ever have qualified due to an assault on a police officer. This is what I mean about falling through the damn fracking crack.

[spin]

59. There is a legal review in the Zimmerman case ...

He has been arrested and will face proceedings. Admittedly this is the result of the media attention. In this case the media did a valuable service. While I maybe somewhat critical of the media's attempt to play both judge and jury in this case, their efforts might result in true justice.

I have often said that I feel that the wording of the law should be reconsidered and revised in order to eliminate ambiguity and confusion. I have also posted that any questionable case should be reviewed at a higher level than the local authorities in order to eliminate any questions such as racial bias.

You assert:

When you only have ONE side of the story every shooting can be justifiable and impossible, or next impossible to prosecute... why castle doctrine has it's place... so does legal review.

I actually agree. However there will be cases in which it is impossible to prove that as individual used legitimate self defense because of the lack of witnesses and evidence that would prove otherwise. In such incidents should the judge instruct the jury that since there are no witnesses and no evidence that the defendant is guilty? Under our system of justice that wouldn't fly because it is the prosecutor's job to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. What would you suggest? Perhaps you have a realistic solution to this conundrum. Admittedly some people may be able to get away with murder but is it far better to assume guilt and send an innocent person who used legitimate self defense to prison for a lengthy sentence because there merely were no witnesses or incriminating evidence? With evidence or witnesses the same shooting could have been determined to be legitimate self defense.

Yes, it is true that if a person breaks into your home while you are present, you have good reason to assume that he intends to far more than steal your valuables. Hence castle doctrine is fair and reasonable although some here will disagree. The fact remains that breaking into an unoccupied home is far different than invading a home when people are present. It is not all that difficult to find out if a home is occupied. (That doesn't mean that I would blow some teenager or even an older individual away because he broke into my home. If he followed my instructions, I would hold him for the police and if he ran out a door I would not shoot him.) I notice that you do support castle doctrine, however many question this law.

It is conceivable that a person might be on a street with a concealed carry permit and find himself under attack from an individual who intends to inflict serious injury or to kill. Requiring him to retreat before using his legally concealed weapon might well offer his attacker a significant advantage. While retreating or running away may be a viable tactic in many situations it might be a very poor choice in others. None of the techniques that I learned in the martial arts involved retreating. I have also found that my ability to accurately shoot diminishes significantly if I am backing up as opposed to standing still or advancing.

As far as Zimmerman losing his carry permit, I can offer no explanation. My daughter filed a restraining order against an individual who was stalking her. Because of a clerical error at the courthouse she received a notice from the state of Florida that required her to turn in her concealed weapons permit. She contacted the judge on the case and he rectified the error. Based on her experience, I suspect that Zimmerman might have received some unusual courtesy from the state.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Oh com'on there is legal review ONLY after massive national

and international pressure.

They did not even do a proper investigation and we know the DA went against the recommendation of the homicide detective to charge. The reason, stand your ground.

Have a good day...

Oh and I will no longer answer to any of your posts on this. I hope some day you realize why SYG has issues, and for god sakes I do do hope they are not just revised, but stricken from books.

[spin]

61. If you carefully read my post you will find that we agree on this point...

Last edited Tue May 1, 2012, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)

He has been arrested and will face proceedings. Admittedly this is the result of the media attention. In this case the media did a valuable service. While I maybe somewhat critical of the media's attempt to play both judge and jury in this case, their efforts might result in true justice.

I find it a shame that you no longer will reply to my posts on this subject. You did make some fair points and I enjoyed the back and forth. In many areas we agree. For example, I believe that the law should be reviewed and reworded. In other posts on this subject I have expressed my view that in any questionable case of self defense, a higher review than the local authorities should be required. However, I see legitimate value in eliminating the requirement for a person to retreat when he is attacked in a manner that a reasonable person standing in his shoes would interpret as having a realistic potential of causing serious injury or death. Therefore I do not believe as you do that the law should be repealed.

One of the major problems in any legal system is the fact that bias and racism can tip the scales of justice. While Lady Justice wears a blindfold the unfortunate reality is that she is not always fair.



edited for typo

[spin]

55. What you ignore is the number of lives that are saved because a person with a carry permit ...

uses his weapon for legitimate self defense. Often such incidents end without the firearm being fired.

It's somewhat similar to the dangers involved in taking prescription medicine. Such medicines save many lives but a small percentage of people who take them suffer serious side effects and sometimes even die.

Of course every time a person with a carry permit misuses his firearm to injure or kill, it is a tragedy. But you also should have to admit that used properly, a concealed weapon can also save the life or health of the person who is licensed to carry it.

Would you prefer that criminals find it easier to kill, injure or rape their victims because your wish to take away their choice of carrying a weapon for self defense is successful?

I understand that an increased rate of violent crime caused by firearms would benefit the agenda of those who wish to make firearms illegal or difficult to own. Unfortunately the human price might well exceed the benefit.

Despite the fact that the number of firearms in our nation has skyrocketed in recent years and many states now allow "shall issue" concealed carry similar to Florida, the violent crime rate has fallen dramatically. While this does not prove that more guns = less crime as there are many factors in the equation, it does show that more guns and "shall issue" concealed carry does not increase the crime rate.

You may feel that we would live in a better nation if we could turn back the clock and make obtaining firearms far more difficult and doing away with all concealed carry laws that honest citizens to carry them.

I disagree.

[pokerfan]

52. Zimmy was lying: ""I thought Trayvon was slightly younger than me..."

"I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am."

Yet, on the night he killed Trayvon, he told the dispatcher:

Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens ok.

Very first time he speaks in court and it's a fucking lie.

[pipoman]

58. Swill

A relative of the "blood in the streets", "common sense" prediction which never happened..