As the pendulum swings, we see a glimpse of sanity on the horizon
For years, gun laws had grown less restrictive. But some gun rights advocacy has been curtailed after the Trayvon Martin shooting, which has provided ammunition for gun control groups.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0419/Trayvon-Martin-shooting-a-turning-point-in-gun-rights-debate/%28page%29/2
Even ALEC is backing off
And on the legislative front, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a 40-year-old conservative advocacy group that supplies legislators with ready-written legislation, announced that, because of pressure from corporations that support its operations, it’s disbanding its Public Safety and Elections taskforce, which supplied states like Florida with its Stand Your Ground law.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I guess we should both turn our pockets inside out and back away. 
Your post is disgusting. I will no longer take anything you post remotely seriously, you don't deserve such consideration. In fact, I don't need to see it all. 
and
If a homicide (or, let's remember, any assault) is committed in self-defence, it is still a homicide (or assault). However, laws pretty universally allow for the act to be justified if it was necessary (generally, as reasonably believed by the person involved) in order to avoid serious injury or death.
NO court every finds anyone "innocent". Courts find people guilty or not guilty under the law, NOT in fact.. The prosecution must prove guilt, and either succeeds or fails.
"Innocent until proved guilty" does NOT mean what so many people would like it to mean. It means that for legal purposes, a person is treated as if they are innocent until they are proved guilty: no one may be punished for a crime unless their crime is proved. An acquittal on a criminal charge IS NOT proof of innocence.
An acquittal based on self-defence means that the mens rea, the intent to commit a wrongful act (in olde English, "malice"
, was not proved. That is one of the two things the prosecution must prove, the other being the actus rea, the act in question itself.
Where it is proved that a person killed someone, the requirement that the actus rea be proved has been met.
Where the person presents evidence to show that they acted in self-defence, and the prosecution cannot prove otherwise to the requisite standard, the requirement that the mens rea be proved has not been met. This process, and the burden of proof, may vary from one jurisdiction to another; once again, here is how my esteemed cousin, oft quoted by Rumpole at the Bailey, put it in a case where accident was alleged (accident being another case where the requisite intent is not present):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolmington_v_DPP
If, in this case, Zimmerman presents some credible evidence to support the claim of self-defence that meets the standard for self-defence, and the prosecution cannot refute it, then yup, he will have created a reasonable doubt as to the mens rea element of the crime, and established that he is entitled to an acquittal.
Unfortunately, if there are no witnesses to a homicide, and the surviving party is able to present an account that may or may not be true but that is credible, someone may in fact get away with murder.
Oh, nobody cares...
I think he was as knowledgeable as I am about SYG. But of course, I wouldn't kill anyone after being told by the cops to stop pursuing the poor guy.
Not rape but robbery. She was always first at work and had the combination to the door. Street thugs decided, "Why bother breaking in when we can make that little (4' 10" old (60 at the time) lady open the door?" After making her open the door they would have had to silence her so she couldn't call the cops while they ransacked the place. But it didn't work as they intended. She was packing a gun. When they saw she was armed they ran like hell. She was never touched.
Would you be happier if she had been helpless and become another murdered crime statistic?
...that in 99% of locations, you could leave your doors unlocked, keep no weapons around, and nothing bad will happen to you in your house. Not robbed, not attacked.
Well, maybe not 99%, but it's pretty damn high.
So being untouched by violence while taking no preparations is just playing the odds.
Plenty of elderly people have gone their entire lives without wearing seatbelts, either. Even in the "bad old days" you still have an excellent chance of not being in a fatal car accident. And except for a few cranky libertarians, this feat is not promoted as a moral victory over the prevailing wisdom, or whatever.
What about the rest of us who carry but aren't addicted?
I'm much more addicted to the first aid kit in my car, after witnessing a multiple-fatality rollover accident in Death Valley many years ago. The few first aid kits we had between us in our little caravan were no match for the number of injuries we tried to treat. I never want to find myself so unprepared again.
BTW, most of America believes that sanity is finally returning to our gun laws. Hope you get onboard soon! 
> But I bet you would agree with one that came up with an opposite view
Oh, yes, of COURSE!
Have a good night.
> Coming form you, that's rich
Yeah! I make all kinds of predictions about what other people will say in the future! Like in my post #__, my post #__, my post #__.
Wait, I didn't ever do that. Unlike you, who did it a few posts up.
We have to keep up the pressure?
Exactly what have you done to put any pressure on anyone other than post about it on the internet?
"4% or so addicted to carrying guns in public"
Kind of like you being addicted to whining about it on the internet?
"coddling budding Zimmermans"
New stuff for your shtick
Your really grasping now. I sure hope you didn't hurt yourself with that stretch.
I will add that to your growing list of mantras.
I carry because my state says I can and on the very small chance I will need it, not because of your dumb ass perception of lawful CHL holders.
Addicted. 
...that it's a great primer on what not to say when griping about the lack of civility in others....
Maybe I am not getting your joke.
There was a peak in gun deaths during the mid nineties, but the numbers today are similar to 1990 from what I can see.
I am very patient, but we are not on the right track, just the opposite. Though as I said, the madness may finally have peaked. We are not discussing other causes of early death here. Why are you trying to change the conversation?
> The only thing I see is more guns does not mean more crime.
Nope. Completely illogical. Some other factor might be reducing crime MORE, and the greater number of guns is bringing it back up (but not enough to overcome the swing from the 1st factor or factors reducing it)
Logic is fun. But not for gun-religionists.
big rise in 1994, the last time the NRA convinced their loony followers that prohibition was right around the corner and that marauding blacks would be coming for their women. (
Clinton). Another Dem in the WH, another propaganda campaign. And look at how hand gun deaths account for 1/2 of all of the homicides (almost 3/4 during the peak). Kind of slam dunks the "would you be happier if the murderers had used knives & bats" canard.
You would like to paint me as an extremist, when in truth I am probably the most moderate here. I advocate no banning, grabbing or confiscating. I advocate common sense laws for everyone. I oppose the indiscriminate issue of CC permits and the laws allowing such nonsense. I oppose SYG laws for obvious reasons. I know there are those here who would impose tighter controls regarding firearms purchasing. I find that effort rather futile and counter productive, given the firearms tradition of this country. I believe in responsibility and accountability. I consider routine public carry (with exceptions) to be highly irresponsible in terms of public safety, personal safety, personal integrity and progress. It's an opinion, not a call to arms (or non arms). It is a call to the rational mind. We can disagree. That's OK. No need for broad brush name calling. Let's stick to the issues at hand, stay on topic and we might be able to have some fruitful discussions. I know it gets heated in here and that is understandable, but we can all learn from each other and hopefully grow from the experience.
We all want the same goal - a peaceful society where conversations such as this are irrelevant. We only differ as to how we get there.
