|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 12 2013 05:57 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:12 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Umm...yes wearing a seat belt means you are anticipating a car crash.
No, it means you are aware it is a possibility and want to be prepared, not that you expect it to happen. Yeah...you're not disagreeing with me. If all you want is a non-zero possibility then we should all be carrying guns at all times and that would be effing weird. Zimmerman must have considered the possibility of violence high enough that a gun was necessary. Bear in mind that many police forces outside the states don't even consider the possibility of violence high enough to warrant a gun in their own day to day activities. That threshold has to be high. High enough that I think Zimmerman was going to...help the violence along. I think he got lucky that Martin overreacted and that's the only reason he's getting off. He did bad, but Martin did worse. How did he get lucky that Martin overreacted? His live got pretty much screwed because of it, even if he is not convicted. If Martin had not overreacted, nothing would have happened. Do you seriously believe he would randomly shoot him for no reason just because he was carrying a gun? Just because he was carrying a gun? No I think he was looking for trouble based on his arrogant actions combined with the fact that he was carrying a gun in a role (neighborhood watchmen) that doesn't use guns. And I use lucky in a relative sense here. had Martin not overreacted but violence still happened, Zimmerman would be guilty. How exactly do you think violence would still happen had Martin not attacked him? Zimmerman would aproach him, arrogantly, in your own words, maybe even hold him until the police arrives, and nothing would happen. He could be accused of racism or being a vigilante, but I don't believe there is evidence that Zimmermann would actually attack him. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. I lived in Dallas for almost 15 years, and I think almost everyone I knew had a CHL, and carried daily (Including myself). I now live in Philadelphia, where I would say about half of everyone I know carrys. I've lived in Dallas for 24 years and scarce few people I know actually carry their guns on a daily basis even if they have licenses. Now, tons of cars have guns in them. But actual on person guns...nope. We can both play the anecdotal numbers game about Texas. I bet I win. I live in Dallas as well and recently got my CHL. I carry everyday but that's because the sales territory I work is all of southeast Dallas. I sell windows to apartment buildings. After you measure as many windows that have bullet holes as I have you might change your mind about the need to protect yourself. How's that for anecdotal evidence?
It fits with mine just fine. Your expectation of violence is high enough that a weapon becomes a reasonable precaution. Again, you're an outlier.
|
On July 12 2013 05:57 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:52 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:45 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:12 SKC wrote:
[quote]
How did he get lucky that Martin overreacted? His live got pretty much screwed because of it, even if he is not convicted.
If Martin had not overreacted, nothing would have happened. Do you seriously believe he would randomly shoot him for no reason just because he was carrying a gun? Just because he was carrying a gun? No I think he was looking for trouble based on his arrogant actions combined with the fact that he was carrying a gun in a role (neighborhood watchmen) that doesn't use guns. And I use lucky in a relative sense here. had Martin not overreacted but violence still happened, Zimmerman would be guilty. How exactly do you think violence would still happen had Martin not attacked him? Zimmerman would aproach him, arrogantly, in your own words, maybe even hold him until the police arrives, and nothing would happen. He could be accused of racism or being a vigilante, but I don't believe there is evidence that Zimmermann would actually attack him. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. I lived in Dallas for almost 15 years, and I think almost everyone I knew had a CHL, and carried daily (Including myself). I now live in Philadelphia, where I would say about half of everyone I know carrys. I've lived in Dallas for 24 years and scarce few people I know actually carry their guns on a daily basis even if they have licenses. Now, tons of cars have guns in them. But actual on person guns...nope. We can both play the anecdotal numbers game about Texas. I bet I win. What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!" I have a knife in my bag right now. I am in the office. Do you know why I have it? Because I don't know when I will need a knife. Same with fire and tape. None fo this stuff is illegal or unreasonable. I don't know what you are fishing for. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does mean there is something wrong. Is it not against company policy to have a knife on the premises? I'd get fired on the spot if they discovered anything like that in my bag.
a knife is an ambiguous term. It could be a small knife for slicing an apple or a practical machette
|
Ok so apparently for most of you a simple non-zero possibility of needing an object is grounds for carrying. I think yall are irrational and I think that's more likely to cause problems than solve them. But I'm clearly not in the same company so I'm gonna go back to just reading the thread now.
Again, I think that there are situations that warrant being armed. Like being in a dangerous neighborhood on a regular basis (not a gated community). But that is significantly higher than the simple non-zero possibility yall seem to think qualifies as rational.
|
On July 12 2013 05:57 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:52 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:45 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:12 SKC wrote:
[quote]
How did he get lucky that Martin overreacted? His live got pretty much screwed because of it, even if he is not convicted.
If Martin had not overreacted, nothing would have happened. Do you seriously believe he would randomly shoot him for no reason just because he was carrying a gun? Just because he was carrying a gun? No I think he was looking for trouble based on his arrogant actions combined with the fact that he was carrying a gun in a role (neighborhood watchmen) that doesn't use guns. And I use lucky in a relative sense here. had Martin not overreacted but violence still happened, Zimmerman would be guilty. How exactly do you think violence would still happen had Martin not attacked him? Zimmerman would aproach him, arrogantly, in your own words, maybe even hold him until the police arrives, and nothing would happen. He could be accused of racism or being a vigilante, but I don't believe there is evidence that Zimmermann would actually attack him. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. I lived in Dallas for almost 15 years, and I think almost everyone I knew had a CHL, and carried daily (Including myself). I now live in Philadelphia, where I would say about half of everyone I know carrys. I've lived in Dallas for 24 years and scarce few people I know actually carry their guns on a daily basis even if they have licenses. Now, tons of cars have guns in them. But actual on person guns...nope. We can both play the anecdotal numbers game about Texas. I bet I win. What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!" I have a knife in my bag right now. I am in the office. Do you know why I have it? Because I don't know when I will need a knife. Same with fire and tape. None fo this stuff is illegal or unreasonable. I don't know what you are fishing for. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does mean there is something wrong. Is it not against company policy to have a knife on the premises? I'd get fired on the spot if they discovered anything like that in my bag.
No, I work at a place where we have reasonable people and no one is crazy. They also know that those sorts of policies don't do anything. I also have a letter opener at my desk that I could totally murder people with, but that doesn't matter.
What does this have to do with anything? Some people carry guns. One of my attornys carries a gun when he goes to site visits or home inspections, because there are some parts fo Boston that are messed up. He has never shot anyone, or pulled the gun.
Must like the seat belt, you don't wear it for the times you don't crash. I have a shotgun at my house and shells near by for that reason. You don't prepare for the time people don't break in.
|
On a different note. Assuming that Zimmerman is found Not Guilty is there any chance or even point in the prosecution appealing?
|
On July 12 2013 05:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
depo done. when did prosecutor's closing argument start?
It was supposed to be 1pm, but it was a bit late. Ended up about 1:45 or 2:00pm.
|
On July 12 2013 06:03 Gorsameth wrote:
On a different note. Assuming that Zimmerman is found Not Guilty is there any chance or even point in the prosecution appealing?
on what basis?
|
On July 12 2013 06:01 Klondikebar wrote:
Ok so apparently for most of you a simple non-zero possibility of needing an object is grounds for carrying. I think yall are irrational and I think that's more likely to cause problems than solve them. But I'm clearly not in the same company so I'm gonna go back to just reading the thread now.
If I walked around with a swiss army knife no one would bat an eyelash.
If I walked around with a grenade, people would be upset.
Some would say a grenade is too much while others would say a cell phone is not enough. Somewhere between too much protection and not enough protection is where the gun control argument and (specifically) concealed carry permits lie in.
|
On July 12 2013 06:04 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
depo done. when did prosecutor's closing argument start? It was supposed to be 1pm, but it was a bit late. Ended up about 1:45 or 2:00pm.
is it going on now? i am just getting a weird sound like someone is rewinding and then random tidbits of the closing arguments.
|
On July 12 2013 06:01 Klondikebar wrote:
Ok so apparently for most of you a simple non-zero possibility of needing an object is grounds for carrying. I think yall are irrational and I think that's more likely to cause problems than solve them. But I'm clearly not in the same company so I'm gonna go back to just reading the thread now.
Again, I think that there are situations that warrant being armed. Like being in a dangerous neighborhood on a regular basis (not a gated community). But that is significantly higher than the simple non-zero possibility yall seem to think qualifies as rational.
A gated community, that has been robbed over and over. Hence him being upset about "them punks getting away" and him having called the cops almost 50 times previously.
|
No. It ended at least 1/2 hour ago. Resume at 8:30 tmrw with defense closing.
|
On July 12 2013 06:01 Klondikebar wrote:
Ok so apparently for most of you a simple non-zero possibility of needing an object is grounds for carrying. I think yall are irrational and I think that's more likely to cause problems than solve them. But I'm clearly not in the same company so I'm gonna go back to just reading the thread now.
I think that most people with carry permits prefer to have their firearm on them at all times just in case something were to happen. Theres always a chance something could happen to you and your family and most people would rather be safe then sorry. Not that I think its a good idea to carry a firearm at all times but I can understand why most people would agree with the idea.
|
On July 12 2013 06:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:01 Klondikebar wrote:
Ok so apparently for most of you a simple non-zero possibility of needing an object is grounds for carrying. I think yall are irrational and I think that's more likely to cause problems than solve them. But I'm clearly not in the same company so I'm gonna go back to just reading the thread now. If I walked around with a swiss army knife no one would bat an eyelash. If I walked around with a grenade, people would be upset. Some would say a grenade is too much while others would say a cell phone is not enough. Somewhere between too much protection and not enough protection is where the gun control argument and (specifically) concealed carry permits lie in.
I'm not sure a grenade could be considered a self-defense weapon.
|
On July 12 2013 06:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:57 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:52 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:45 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Just because he was carrying a gun? No
I think he was looking for trouble based on his arrogant actions combined with the fact that he was carrying a gun in a role (neighborhood watchmen) that doesn't use guns.
And I use lucky in a relative sense here. had Martin not overreacted but violence still happened, Zimmerman would be guilty.
How exactly do you think violence would still happen had Martin not attacked him? Zimmerman would aproach him, arrogantly, in your own words, maybe even hold him until the police arrives, and nothing would happen. He could be accused of racism or being a vigilante, but I don't believe there is evidence that Zimmermann would actually attack him. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. I lived in Dallas for almost 15 years, and I think almost everyone I knew had a CHL, and carried daily (Including myself). I now live in Philadelphia, where I would say about half of everyone I know carrys. I've lived in Dallas for 24 years and scarce few people I know actually carry their guns on a daily basis even if they have licenses. Now, tons of cars have guns in them. But actual on person guns...nope. We can both play the anecdotal numbers game about Texas. I bet I win. What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!" I have a knife in my bag right now. I am in the office. Do you know why I have it? Because I don't know when I will need a knife. Same with fire and tape. None fo this stuff is illegal or unreasonable. I don't know what you are fishing for. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does mean there is something wrong. Is it not against company policy to have a knife on the premises? I'd get fired on the spot if they discovered anything like that in my bag. Must like the seat belt, you don't wear it for the times you don't crash. I have a shotgun at my house and shells near by for that reason. You don't prepare for the time people don't break in.
Ok one last post because I really don't like this analogy. Seatbelts aren't going to hurt you. Statistically you are more likely to harm yourself or someone you know with that shotgun than you are to prevent a home invasion. And before you go saying "I'm trained!" or "I'm not that dumb!" that's exactly what everyone thinks. In a normally distributed large sample size on a scale of 0-10, you're somewhere between 4-6.
|
On July 12 2013 06:01 Klondikebar wrote:
Ok so apparently for most of you a simple non-zero possibility of needing an object is grounds for carrying. I think yall are irrational and I think that's more likely to cause problems than solve them. But I'm clearly not in the same company so I'm gonna go back to just reading the thread now.
Again, I think that there are situations that warrant being armed. Like being in a dangerous neighborhood on a regular basis (not a gated community). But that is significantly higher than the simple non-zero possibility yall seem to think qualifies as rational.
Why does he need a reason to carry a firearm if:
1) He's perfectly within his Constitutional and Legal rights to do so
2) He has his concealed carry permit
It doesn't matter what kind of neighborhood he's in. He's allowed to carry a firearm, and apparently needed it in his "completely safe" gated community.
You don't know when something could happen. Some people like to be prepared to defend their or their families lives if the time calls, which it might when they are completely off their guard. If you don't feel that risk, you're within your rights not to carry a firearm but you don't have the right to go around saying "OH YOU SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO CARRY A PISTOL BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN A GATED COMMUNITY!"
|
On July 12 2013 06:06 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 06:01 Klondikebar wrote:
Ok so apparently for most of you a simple non-zero possibility of needing an object is grounds for carrying. I think yall are irrational and I think that's more likely to cause problems than solve them. But I'm clearly not in the same company so I'm gonna go back to just reading the thread now. If I walked around with a swiss army knife no one would bat an eyelash. If I walked around with a grenade, people would be upset. Some would say a grenade is too much while others would say a cell phone is not enough. Somewhere between too much protection and not enough protection is where the gun control argument and (specifically) concealed carry permits lie in. I'm not sure a grenade could be considered a self-defense weapon.
Well neither are nukes but that didn't stop the US and Russia.
It was supposed to be an outlier to showcase a ridiculous image in order for it to be compared to other objects that seem "normal"
Of course most people (today) would find a hand grenade as not an okay object for self defense. But somewhere between having a cellphone and having a hand grenade is where the argument of self defense weapons want to be.
|
On July 12 2013 06:01 Klondikebar wrote:
Ok so apparently for most of you a simple non-zero possibility of needing an object is grounds for carrying. I think yall are irrational and I think that's more likely to cause problems than solve them. But I'm clearly not in the same company so I'm gonna go back to just reading the thread now.
Again, I think that there are situations that warrant being armed. Like being in a dangerous neighborhood on a regular basis (not a gated community). But that is significantly higher than the simple non-zero possibility yall seem to think qualifies as rational.
So... facts be damned, your feelings > facts?
Ok one last post because I really don't like this analogy. Seatbelts aren't going to hurt you. Statistically you are more likely to harm yourself or someone you know with that shotgun than you are to prevent a home invasion. And before you go saying "I'm trained!" or "I'm not that dumb!" that's exactly what everyone thinks. In a normally distributed large sample size on a scale of 0-10, you're somewhere between 4-6.
Seatbelts can and do injure people including mortal injuries if they aren't put on properly. Just the way guns can and do injure people including mortal injuries if they are not used properly.
In 2010 ~600 people were killed in gun accidents and ~71,000 people injured; saying that you are statistically more likely to accidentally shoot yourself or someone else than defend your home is a delightful way to lie with statistics. I don't recall defending home invasions to be the only way guns are employed in self-defense against crime; an honest argument would acknowledge that it is unclear whether you are more likely statistically to accidentally shoot yourself or someone else with a gun than it would be you defending yourself with a gun from crime at any place or time.
How generous of you, with little if any facts, to bless us with averageness, whether a little bit below, a little bit above, right there in the middle. No doubt you are at least an 8.
In a country of 300 million guns that about 100 million of the population have regular access to daily and ~70,000+ accidents resulting from that access, and 300 million people total in the country, that's a chance of being accidentally shot in a given year at less than one-tenth of one percent. The percentages we're talking about here are so low that talking about which is more likely is kind of pointless.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 12 2013 05:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
depo done. when did prosecutor's closing argument start?
it started abut 1:35 or so and ended around 4:15 or something. Defense starts their closing argument tommorrow morning at 8:30 I believe and then they give jury instructions and they are off to make a verdict.
|
I feel this has gotten completelly outside the actual topic and into gun control, which has a separate thread for a very good reason.
|
I guess for society to function LAW == FACTS
but I dont think anyone has 100% confidence in the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
