What makes you think he wouldn't just carry a knife and do the exact same thing?

I know I don't.

There was zero reason for Zimmerman to do anything beyond placing a call...and there's even question if there was any reason to place the call IMHO.

I don't see flawed laws, I don't see racism....I see a tragedy caused be bad decisions.

and the other bad decision was to declare open season with the SYG law.

It is either murder or justifiable even under duty to retreat, depending on which scenario is the truth.
Don't blame the NRA, blame Seminole County animal control.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

If there were no CCW law in Florida, what would have prevented Zimmerman from grabbing his handgun out of his house and doing the exact same thing?

He wasn't a habitual criminal. Doubtful that he would have carried without a permit.

And that's the whole point. Without the gun, Martin is still alive and Zimmerman's life is not facing murder charges. I personally think that Zimmerman is somewhat of a victim in all this as well. I'm not excusing what he did -- ultimately he's responsible for his own decisions and actions -- but he bought into the whole vigilante CCW mentality, and now he's killed another human.

...let alone had one in his pocket.

and modest.

...keep guns out of the hands of 99% of the population, particularly idiots like Zimmerman.

"modest" doesn't enter into the equation.

and much of the media claims have been proven to be questionable if not false. I'm more interested in keeping guns out of the neighborhood drug connection and his suppliers. They are a greater source of gun violence than 99.9 percent of the population. Like I once said several months ago, the typical bong owner (coke head, meth head) has more blood on their hands than the NRA, SAF, GOA, NFA (Canadian NRA) combined.

of only the rich and politically connected being armed. Well, so do they.

how nice - the rich, the powerful, the politically connected will have guns while the plebs do without.

Many of us see a dead kid, killed by somebody with a gun.

A kid who would be alive if the somebody had not had a gun.

We see laws that allow people like that somebody to carry guns around to be worse than flawed.

And we know that events have many causes, some of them sine qua non.

In this case, without the gun, nothing.


I know ... we're all supposed to trust our fellow "citizens" ...

Trayvon Martin did just as you direct.

He used common sense.

He went out to the store to buy something he wanted, and then was going back where he came from.

Fair bit of common sense in evidence there.

He's the dead one.

See how that doesn't work?

It is indeed an Opinion Editorial (oped), filled with BS by (Editor?) Rodricks.

Take this beautifully illogical statement for instance:

Only one tiny morsel of rationality:



The rest is utter BS.

For example, if GZ hadn't shot TM, hey, maybe TM would have been struck by lightning!

In all probability, of course, take the gun out of the equation, and TM is still alive, which is what the author is saying.

No, the author is saying there would have been:

1) No pursuit.

2) No confrontation.

3) No fight.

4) No senseless death with racial overtones.

5) No story.

Nothing about lightning, but plenty of other wild speculation. Zimmerman had been instrumental in catching other people. He was armed this time, but he wasn't intending to patrol when he left the house if you believe him. So where does the author get the idea that there wouldn't have been any pursuit if he hadn't taken been armed?

If there was a pursuit, there could have easily been a confrontation and a fight. And a death.

Where did you get the idea of someone being struck by lightning? If Martin was responsible for Martin's head injuries, why not go with death from traumatic head injury? Were you trying to bolster the author's silly point that without a gun we would have to go to ridiculous extremes--lightning strikes--to have a death?

As I said, BS.

Without a gun, at worst this is a fight -- fights happen all the time, and they rarely end up with someone dead.

But I think there's a pretty good case to be made that without the gun, GZ wouldn't have pursued or confronted TM. There's plenty of evidence that holding a gun changes people's judgements, for example, it makes you more likely to think that someone else is holding a gun also. And I don't think that GZ would have been as quick to take it upon himself to follow TM rather than just let the cops handle it if not for the gun. Especially since, as you point out, he wasn't intending to patrol.

But, I'll agree that "no gun, no fight" is not as clear as "no gun, no death". I think "no gun, no death" comes pretty close to certainty, whereas "no gun, no fight" does not.

Holding a gun in your hand is different than having a concealed gun on your person. I very seriously doubt that the measured effect you reference is remotely applicable to a long-time concealed carrier who is not directly handling a weapon.

IF Martin was actually beating Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, and if that act was not driven by fear of a man with a gun, I don't see how you can arrive at "no gun, no death" being a near certainty. A young man who has it in him to do such a thing could still easily have done it without Martin having a gun. And death from head trauma is not extremely remote.

But I am glad to see we partially agree.

Sure, not as strong as actually holding the gun in your hand, but I don't think there's any doubt that it changes your perceptions and your judgement.

In fact, that's the reason I think most people CCW. Not because of personal safety, but because of the feeling of walking around with a loaded gun -- the sense of power. If it's really about safety, there's pepper spray, which doesn't carry with it any of the risks, but also doesn't provide the tough-guy bravado.

As far as the death question, people can get beat up pretty bad without dying. I don't think GZ's life was actually at risk. Of course he says he was. And maybe he thought so at the time -- getting your ass kicked also affects your judgement. But few fights without weapons end up with someone dying.

I'm sure that the immature attitude you attribute is false in most cases. I think, knowing multiple carriers of both sexes, that most experienced concealed carriers forget about their weapons most of the time (unless it's a comfort issue). It's very hard to forget a gun in your hand, especially if you got it from a stranger on the spur of the moment.

I carry pepper spray when in crowded places like Theaters, Malls, Gate BB games ect...

LEO's carry less lethal options why shouldn't that be in a civilians tool box.


On the other hand CCW has nothing to do with feeling more like a man or whatever people claim. It's only geared toward personal well being and safety for family and loved ones.

All the "tough-guy" talk may be valid if the person is open carrying, but with CC no one is aware you're more of a man, or extra macho because they have zero idea the safety device is being carried on your person. It's hard to be extra cool if no one realizes it. Just feeling extra cool and macho isn't enough for a real ego driven male.


I highly recommend a kimber pepper blaster.