Astazha: HAMMERTOE: Tbh, if a 15 y/o black guy is sitting on top of you, pummeling you, you might not even look for a gun.

Getting "pummeled" does not justify lethal force. Especially if you've been following the guy for so long that it's come to this. Even if you decided to get your gun out, which I would really not suggest, there are warning shots. There are non-lethal wounds. There's telling him to stop, or you'll shoot.

You do not simply go from "I'm getting my ass kicked over a confrontation I created" to "Bang, you're dead."

IIRC, here in Georgia the gun laws state something about someone with a carry permit can't start shooting if they started the confrontation. Jackass in FL shouldn't have followed the kid.

Having said that, if someone attacks me and I'm carrying then I'd likely shoot them. But I don't go around starting shiat and would be perfectly happy if I never have to consider using a firearm to defend myself. I pulled a gun out and pointed it at someone once* and I'd just as soon never do it again.

/*On vacation at a beach house and some drunk was pounding on the sliding glass door asking to talk to someone that wasn't there. Repeatedly yelled at him to leave and he kept pounding on the door. Pulled out the gun, pointed it at his chest and flipped the safety off because I thought the door was going to break. He saw that and left. Perfect ending if you ask me.

I'm surprised the kooks haven't started sending Obama skittles & tea, ... yet

Skittles, when flushed down the toilet, look remarkably like a Nascar race.

yert: Sock Ruh Tease: [newsinfo.nd.edu image 300x225]

What is the holey thing on the end of the cylinder of this Glock?

That is a russian nascent (not sure of spelling) it is the only revolver that can use a silencer. the cylinder seals with the barrel when the gun is fired.

/I know it's probably already been covered.

sry nagant and may not be gun in pic (new window)

As much as I think we have a lot of social problems in that we dangerously stereotype a whole bunch of people, that doesn't change the fact that guns should always be legal in the US. Concealed carry, waiting periods, and other gun control is fine but never go overboard. I think places like Chicago and NYC are unconstitutional as hell and it should be stopped. Banning guns will only make everything worse. Imagine what it's like with drugs now but with guns added on top it. Bigger money and bigger violence.

I think I'll mail a bag of Skittles to the police station that handled this. And maybe the governor of Florida.

They'll probably worry that it's a weapon of some sort. But there is no way a bag of Skittles could reasonably be confused with a weapon of any kind.

Unless you're a little girl who pees her pants at the sight of her own shadow. Or a dark man.

/just sayin'

ciberido: cig-mkr: Sock Ruh Tease: What is the holey thing on the end of the cylinder of this Glock?

I was going to ask the same thing.
It can't be a Glock either. ????

Does Glock even make revolvers? "Glock revolver" seems to be something of a Photoshop in-joke among gun enthusiasts.

I think it stems from the (perceived) notion that the media always misidentifies handguns as Glocks and rifles as AK-47s. The bit about revolvers is especially poignant because you absolutely can't confuse a revolver as being a Glock unless you lack even a basic knowledge on the topic, or are deliberately using charged/biased language to influence a story.

As a CCW holder, NRA member, SAF member, and "gun enthusiast" (I'm a nut, but not because of guns)...

Zimmerman deserves to be investigated, ever moment of this situation boiled down, and the whole thing presented to a Grand Jury.

If the GJ finds sufficient evidence to indict, he deserves to be tried before a jury. If the jury believes that the evidence suggests guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he deserves to be imprisoned.

The vast, vast majority of gun owners in this country that know anything about all this agree: This doesn't fit with Stand Your Ground, and warrants a trial if sufficient evidence exists.

Only the really warped asshats believe that Zimmerman was in the right and shouldn't be charged (citing the fact that the police found insufficient evidence to take it to a prosecutor, and these being the same assholes who are all "fark THE POLICE THOSE PIGS ARE FASCISTS I NEED TO DEFEND MYSELF FROM THE STATE" assholes...)

Astazha: Getting "pummeled" does not justify lethal force. Especially if you've been following the guy for so long that it's come to this. Even if you decided to get your gun out, which I would really not suggest, there are warning shots. There are non-lethal wounds. There's telling him to stop, or you'll shoot.

You've got to be trolling. For one, getting "pummeled" most definitely is legal justification for the use of lethal force in self-defense. And two, I'm pretty sure we've hashed through the whole "warning shot" and "non-lethal shot" issues a million times already.

I've seen frothy anti (gun control) people out there, but I haven't seen a big push to actually take guns away. Everyone agrees there should be some sort of gun control. Should a two year old be able to purchase a fully automatic laser guided heat seaking missle gun? Should convicted murderers be able to pick up a gun on their way out of prison? Should we be selling anti aircraft guns next to the airport? Most would say no. There you believe in gun control. Who is suggesting that we take away Ralph's hunting rifle? or take away Cynthia's WW2 handgun passed on from her grandfather? Or don's gun he likes to shoot on weekends? No politician on a National stage in their right mind would ever make strict gun control a must. Even if the electorate had a change of heart and decided to get rid of guns, the logistics and cost would be astronomical. It just isn't important enough. People with guns are more likely to get shot or shoot their loved ones. People that swim in the ocean are more likely to be attacked by a shark. People that live in West Virginia are more likely to marry a relative. My question is who is really trying to take your guns away? Most people don't give a fark.

WTF Indeed: Wait? Are you telling me that personal responsibility becomes vastly more important in states with conceal/carry laws? Cause the NRA says it's like the old West that if everyone had guns there would be peace, and I know this is a fact because there was never any gun violence in any western I ever saw.

/For conceal/Carry laws
//Thinks the NRA is screwing up it up for everyone.

If everyone has a gun, then you don't have to guess if they have a gun. Takes the guesswork out of self-defense -- you're always free to shoot.

Zimmerman - disgusting racist vigilante who transforms from a hispanic into a white person like the incredible hulk when he is at the peak of his racist hatred for blacks.

Kansas City black teenagers who doused a 13 year old white kid with gasoline and set him on fire while screaming racist epithets at him - an unfortunate crime with no racist overtones

/funny how only one is being investigated by the civil rights division of the justice department
//if you question why this is, you are racist

The_Sponge: Jackson Herring: I have to wonder honestly whether there are more of us than gun nuts, us in this case being responsible gun owners who are continually embarrassed by the NRA.


Like them or not, but they're the only national organization that's large enough to deal with the airheads at the Brady Campaign and Million Mom March.

So in your opinion, the only way to counter irrationality is more irrationality?

I'm fine with conceal carry. I just get sick of the gun nuts who think that it will make that significant of a difference in crime and think they should be able to carry their gun wherever they want and also the nuts who think stuff like a registry or a background check is an infringment of their rights.

It's those assholes which keep me from being more pro-gun...because those people scare the fark out of me.

To assume that Zimmerman acted in self defense you also have to assume that Martin committed a crime. This statement alone justifies a court trial. Police don't determine guilt and innocence, courts do.

Philip Francis Queeg: Kit Fister: abfalter:

And add to this:

- Don't carry a gun, follow some kid after the police tell you not to, kill an innocent child, and then try to claim self-defense to cover it all up.

Uhh, doesn't that kinda presume the kid is innocent, when we don't have enough evidence yet to make a judgement?

George Zimmerman made the final judgement.

Yes, he did. TO be clear, I'm neither defending Zimmerman, nor demonizing him. I'm simply saying that, in this case, if the evidence warrants a trial after a thorough investigation, then the man needs to stand trial.

I wasn't there. No one in the media was there. The Media has given us conflicting reports, conflicting evidence, and second-hand information.

Since we have no first-hand experience, no direct evidence, and a middle-man with questionable motives feeding information to us, for all we know martians beamed down and shot the kid while they were going for ice cream.

Investigate, try if sufficient evidence is found to exist, and convict if sufficient evidence of guild is found by a jury.

Until then, constitutionally, all men are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

/I know, that doesn't matter to the media.

KidneyStone: /*On vacation at a beach house and some drunk was pounding on the sliding glass door asking to talk to someone that wasn't there. Repeatedly yelled at him to leave and he kept pounding on the door. Pulled out the gun, pointed it at his chest and flipped the safety off because I thought the door was going to break. He saw that and left. Perfect ending if you ask me.

Yeah, a guy knocking on the door does call for deadly force.

Kit Fister: abfalter:

And add to this:

- Don't carry a gun, follow some kid after the police tell you not to, kill an innocent child, and then try to claim self-defense to cover it all up.

Uhh, doesn't that kinda presume the kid is innocent, when we don't have enough evidence yet to make a judgement?

Here's the thing- even if the kid did turn around and start kicking his ass, he's still not justified in shooting him. It's pretty clear that the shooter aggressively pursued the kid and was, at most, defending himself from a stalker/assailant. They were not on this guy's property, he didn't witness any criminal activity (or else he would have mentioned it in his widely publicized 911 call), and he wasn't acting in the protection of any person.

Even if the shooter truly felt he is in fear for his life, he's still the aggressor, and thus NOT entitled to "stand your ground" protection under the law. There's no way he's getting away with less than manslaughter.

Devo: I've seen frothy anti (gun control) people out there, but I haven't seen a big push to actually take guns away. Everyone agrees there should be some sort of gun control. Should a two year old be able to purchase a fully automatic laser guided heat seaking missle gun? Should convicted murderers be able to pick up a gun on their way out of prison? Should we be selling anti aircraft guns next to the airport? Most would say no. There you believe in gun control. Who is suggesting that we take away Ralph's hunting rifle? or take away Cynthia's WW2 handgun passed on from her grandfather? Or don's gun he likes to shoot on weekends? No politician on a National stage in their right mind would ever make strict gun control a must. Even if the electorate had a change of heart and decided to get rid of guns, the logistics and cost would be astronomical. It just isn't important enough. People with guns are more likely to get shot or shoot their loved ones. People that swim in the ocean are more likely to be attacked by a shark. People that live in West Virginia are more likely to marry a relative. My question is who is really trying to take your guns away? Most people don't give a fark.

I think it's more of a few hysterical people on both sides of the aisle, the ones who are knee-jerking whenever a violent crime occurs rather than looking at the laws already on the books and the diminished funding police forces and community programs have received which can contribute to diminishing violence; and the people reacting to these reactionaries.

Some people just aren't happy until they have their own version of a perfect world, and rarely do they figure out that even in a perfect world, shiat happens.

Rent Party: cig-mkr: Sock Ruh Tease: [newsinfo.nd.edu image 300x225]

What is the holey thing on the end of the cylinder of this Glock?

I was going to ask the same thing.
It can't be a Glock either. ????

It's clearly an assault weapon.

AK-47 obviously.

FarkinHostile: CitizenTed: As a nihilist, I support the unchecked proliferation of handguns and the paranoid application of their use.

Nihilists! fark me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

Your sarcasm makes you sound Jewish. Papers, please.

Mirror-Neurons, they're called you're mirror-neurons oh yes they're mirror-neurons.

Kit Fister: Philip Francis Queeg: Kit Fister: abfalter:

And add to this:

- Don't carry a gun, follow some kid after the police tell you not to, kill an innocent child, and then try to claim self-defense to cover it all up.

Uhh, doesn't that kinda presume the kid is innocent, when we don't have enough evidence yet to make a judgement?

George Zimmerman made the final judgement.

Yes, he did. TO be clear, I'm neither defending Zimmerman, nor demonizing him. I'm simply saying that, in this case, if the evidence warrants a trial after a thorough investigation, then the man needs to stand trial.

I wasn't there. No one in the media was there. The Media has given us conflicting reports, conflicting evidence, and second-hand information.

Since we have no first-hand experience, no direct evidence, and a middle-man with questionable motives feeding information to us, for all we know martians beamed down and shot the kid while they were going for ice cream.

Investigate, try if sufficient evidence is found to exist, and convict if sufficient evidence of guild is found by a jury.

Until then, constitutionally, all men are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

/I know, that doesn't matter to the media.

Too bad Trayvon Martin didn't get that presumption of innocence from George Zimmerman before he hunted him down and shot him dead.

dahmers love zombie: Do not point a gun at anything you are not prepared to destroy.

Do not point a gun at anything or anyone that is not causing an immediate threat to you or those under your legal protection.

Do not put a gun in your hand for defensive purposes unless such a threat is occurring, or you have a reasonable belief that such a threat is about to occur.

The preceding situations do not in fact involve chasing someone down the street under ANY circumstances. If you're chasing them, by definition the threat is NOT coming towards you, you farking idiot.

The problem is that those rules all involve perception and judgment.

Are you prepared to destroy a bad guy. Yes.

Are you threatened by that guy walking toward you. Yes.

pxsteel: 17 year old male is only a kid to his parrents, they are a young punk thugs to most everyone else

You honestly think most 17 year old males are punks and thugs? They might be stupid but most are just normal people trying to make it in this world. Also, most people DO consider 17 year olds "kids", but not children.

Sticky Hands: Astazha: there are warning shots. There are non-lethal wounds.

No, there are NOT these... there are NEVER these.
Scrub them from your mind, a gun is not a less than lethal weapon.

Blah, bullshiat.

1. Warning shots -- not a great idea, but in many cases, unless the attacker is determined, you don't always have to hit them in order to get the point across (and many times even the production of a gun is enough to stop a would-be attacker)

2. 80% of bullet wounds are survivable with proper medical attention.
---

The goal of a self-defense shooting is NOT to kill the threat. The GOAL is to stop the threat. Whether that's through death or disengagement is irrelevant. Threat stops, shooting stops.

HAMMERTOE: Philip Francis Queeg: Is it any different if it's a 15 y/o white guy? Is that less threatening to you?

No. Actually it's not. And witness have already stated that Treyvon was on top of Zimmerman, pummeling him. The real question: why did it not matter to Treyvon that Zimmerman had a gun?

Perhaps Zimmerman didn't draw his gun initially - you're supposed to leave it concealed, not wave it around in a confrontation that YOU forced.

And since you brought up witness statements...

Mary Cutcher and her roommate said they heard Trayvon pleading. Then they heard a gunshot. They rushed outside and saw Mr. Zimmerman standing over the teenager. Ms. Cutcher said she did not think it was self-defense and added that the police took only a brief statement, despite her efforts to go into detail.

Link (new window)

Doesn't sound like Zimmerman was under Trayvon when he shot him.

The REAL question: why do you shoot someone when they're pleading to be spared?

pxsteel: 17 year old male is only a kid to his parrents, they are a young punk thugs to most everyone else

You think every 17 year old in the country is a "punk thug"?

Or just the black ones?

Fubini: Kit Fister: abfalter:

And add to this:

- Don't carry a gun, follow some kid after the police tell you not to, kill an innocent child, and then try to claim self-defense to cover it all up.

Uhh, doesn't that kinda presume the kid is innocent, when we don't have enough evidence yet to make a judgement?

Here's the thing- even if the kid did turn around and start kicking his ass, he's still not justified in shooting him. It's pretty clear that the shooter aggressively pursued the kid and was, at most, defending himself from a stalker/assailant. They were not on this guy's property, he didn't witness any criminal activity (or else he would have mentioned it in his widely publicized 911 call), and he wasn't acting in the protection of any person.

Even if the shooter truly felt he is in fear for his life, he's still the aggressor, and thus NOT entitled to "stand your ground" protection under the law. There's no way he's getting away with less than manslaughter.

I generally agree with you, actually.

Fubini: Here's the thing- even if the kid did turn around and start kicking his ass, he's still not justified in shooting him.

Aggressively following someone (whatever that means) is not crime, nor is it a justification for attack. If that's what happened (HUGE IF) then I don't see why Zimmerman would not be able to claim self defense.

dahmers love zombie: Do not point a gun at anything you are not prepared to destroy.

Do not point a gun at anything or anyone that is not causing an immediate threat to you or those under your legal protection.

Do not put a gun in your hand for defensive purposes unless such a threat is occurring, or you have a reasonable belief that such a threat is about to occur.

The preceding situations do not in fact involve chasing someone down the street under ANY circumstances. If you're chasing them, by definition the threat is NOT coming towards you, you farking idiot.

/FL resident
//have a CCW permit and "some" guns
///have never pointed a gun at another human
////hope I never do

I am sure you have pointed a gun at something "that is not causing an immediate threat to you or those under your legal protection". In fact I imagine you have taken aim, shot at and destroyed things that were not threatening anyone. I know I have. In fact every time I have fired a gun I was under no apparent threat.
/of course I understand what you are saying as well.

Rent Party: You've got to be trolling. For one, getting "pummeled" most definitely is legal justification for the use of lethal force in self-defense.



No it isn't. Fear for your life is. I know a dude that is always carrying. I have witnessed him being a complete asshole to people, and end up in coats-over-your-head ass kickings as a result. His gun never came out.

"Gettin' beat on doesn't kill you."



And two, I'm pretty sure we've hashed through the whole "warning shot" and "non-lethal shot" issues a million times already.

Yeah, this. That's just retarded.

Legal standard is "Fear of Death or Great Bodily Harm". If you are attacked and reasonably believe that you are in danger, you are justified in defending yourself.

beta_plus: Zimmerman - disgusting racist vigilante who transforms from a hispanic into a white person like the incredible hulk when he is at the peak of his racist hatred for blacks.

Kansas City black teenagers who doused a 13 year old white kid with gasoline and set him on fire while screaming racist epithets at him - an unfortunate crime with no racist overtones

/funny how only one is being investigated by the civil rights division of the justice department
//if you question why this is, you are racist

The Kansas City teenager in question told the police it was self-defense, and was immediately let go with only a halfassed investigation? I did not know that. You do realize that it's the cover-up that makes this a big story, right, and not the crime? That that is what is being investigated? You think this is just about a white guy shooting a black guy?

HAMMERTOE: gameshowhost: In before The Guy That Is Infromed Via Newsmax And American Thinker... oh, rats.

You know what? I signed the petition to arrest Zimmerman. If you look back and search for my name through threads from the last few days, you will see that I've come out for his prosecution. Go ahead. I dare you.

Then, today, I've started seeing things about black people coming out in defense of Mr. Zimmerman. So, I stopped and took a breath and listened.

Why would that makes you stop and reconsider?

Jackson Herring: Mrtraveler01: I'm fine with conceal carry. I just get sick of the gun nuts who think that it will make that significant of a difference in crime and think they should be able to carry their gun wherever they want and also the nuts who think stuff like a registry or a background check is an infringment of their rights.

I'm fine with concealed carry but I reserve the right to laugh at a grown man who thinks he needs to carry a farking LOADED GUN on his person every time he leaves the house.

I can't take the NRA folks seriously after watching this 60 Minutes piece on them...I never yelled at the TV so much during 60 Minutes than I did with this piece

Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, a guy knocking on the door does call for deadly force.

He didn't shoot him.

Though I would have kept the safety own and backed up a bit just incase he did end up breaking the glass door and coming in. I would have had time to flip it off and protect myself without increasing the risk I shoot an innocent man through the door.

However, what Zimmerman did was would be like if he was the one pounding on the door and then shoot the homeowner and claimed self defense. He started it. He followed the teen. He convicted that teen of doing wrong in his mind before he had even the tiniest shred and then he acted on that assumption.

Kit Fister: Sticky Hands: Astazha: there are warning shots. There are non-lethal wounds.

No, there are NOT these... there are NEVER these.
Scrub them from your mind, a gun is not a less than lethal weapon.

Blah, bullshiat.

1. Warning shots -- not a great idea, but in many cases, unless the attacker is determined, you don't always have to hit them in order to get the point across (and many times even the production of a gun is enough to stop a would-be attacker)

2. 80% of bullet wounds are survivable with proper medical attention.
---

The goal of a self-defense shooting is NOT to kill the threat. The GOAL is to stop the threat. Whether that's through death or disengagement is irrelevant. Threat stops, shooting stops.

And then, unfortunately, if the threat survives, he sues you. Even if he broke into your house and pointed a gun at you first.

Kit Fister: Fubini: Kit Fister: abfalter:

And add to this:

- Don't carry a gun, follow some kid after the police tell you not to, kill an innocent child, and then try to claim self-defense to cover it all up.

Uhh, doesn't that kinda presume the kid is innocent, when we don't have enough evidence yet to make a judgement?

Here's the thing- even if the kid did turn around and start kicking his ass, he's still not justified in shooting him. It's pretty clear that the shooter aggressively pursued the kid and was, at most, defending himself from a stalker/assailant. They were not on this guy's property, he didn't witness any criminal activity (or else he would have mentioned it in his widely publicized 911 call), and he wasn't acting in the protection of any person.

Even if the shooter truly felt he is in fear for his life, he's still the aggressor, and thus NOT entitled to "stand your ground" protection under the law. There's no way he's getting away with less than manslaughter.

I generally agree with you, actually.

Let the man have his day in court, I personally believe his is guilty as all sin.

MBooda: [fc01.deviantart.net image 640x480]

Come say hello to my little rainbow!!!!