There's a debate about whether Zimmerman should have been carrying

[Atypical Liberal]

206. Here's what happens if your dream comes to fruition.

When did "gun owners" come to equal "victim of a violent crime"?

You said:

No... I'm saying it's better to take the ass-kicking than to kill some idiot bully or the next T. Martin. Even if in self-defense.

The implication here and in your other posts is that anyone who uses a gun (and, presumably any other kind of weapon) to defend themselves and possibly kill their attacker rather than "take the ass-kicking" is a coward.

This is ridiculous. Many people, not the least of which are police officers, possess firearms because they don't want to engage violent criminals in single combat. Especially people who are old, or infirm, or just small.

Firearms are the best tool currently available for self-defense. Without a firearm, victims of violent crime have three options: They can run away if they are fast enough, they can submit to their attacker if they are tough enough, or they can engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker. The weak will be at the mercy of the strong.

None of these choices are cowardly. When faced with imminent danger, everyone will seek out the solution that seems best to them at the time. You can't fault people for fleeing, submitting, or trying to fight.

Nor is it cowardly to defend yourself from harm using a weapon. What is cowardly is when the strong victimize the weak who have no good way to defend themselves.

If you 'like' guns, there's something wrong with you.

I like guns. My family has used firearms for sport for countless generations. I own firearms that have been in my family 4 generations. I enjoy the engineering that goes into them. I enjoy the craftsmanship that goes into them. I enjoy the skill and self-discipline required to master shooting them. I shoot competitively and I enjoy the sportsmanship and camaraderie with my fellow competitors. There are millions of people like me - even Olympic competitors. There is nothing wrong with us.

If you NEED a gun, everybody agrees that's something different, and yeah, we have the 2nd Amendment to protect that, when that need is real and compelling and WELL-REGULATED.

The second amendment reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You will notice that it is the militia that is well regulated, not the people. You will note also that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not the states, and not the militias. You will also note that the militias spoken of in the second amendment ceased to exist in 1903. You will also note that "well regulated" in 18th century vernacular means "well-functioning". Just like when you defecate regularly you are said to be "regular". It doesn't mean your intestines follow an rulebook.

You will also note that every single proposed version of the second amendment reserved the right to keep and bear arms to the people. You will note also that an attempt to stipulate that this was a collective right was struck down by the Congress when a proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.

You will note also that all nine justices of the Supreme Court and President Obama agree that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of membership in any organization like a militia.

When bullies HAVE guns, then you can't KICK THEIR ASSES without getting KILLED.

Bad people will always have guns. But if no one had guns, then everyone would be at the mercy of any bully stronger and faster than they were.