<p>“totally beside the point?” Ethiopia has an average age of death for males of 57.73 years and females of 62.35. Compare that to the US with every gun related death included.</p>
<p>I assume that “most Americans” would be appalled at the abysmal quality of the water in Ethiopia. So, what does your friend’s reaction to legal guns being available in stores tell us? Anything? Are you suggesting that there are no guns in Ethiopia?</p>
<p>07DAD - are you suggesting that Ethiopians deliberately choose to have bad water? If not, I’m having a hard time following your thought processes.</p>
<p>When not one, but 2 guys with opposite opinions say “check the facts” and give the same link, it interested me. riprorin is right on this one. Hammers, blunt objects killed more than rifles, far more, just as Rip said.
So in this case it wasn’t “right wing” lies.
I draw no conclusions, I only say in this case the facts support riprorin’s statement about rifles/blunt objects.</p>
<p>Younghoss - that’s why it’s an example of “Lies, damned lies and statistics.” Do you think that blunt objects are more dangerous and more likely to be chosen for murder than firearms? Because that’s the import of the statement. That impression is created by aggregating all types of blunt objects and comparing it to one selected subtype of firearm. That’s why it’s a L,DL & S type of misrepresentation, also known as “lying with numbers.” Do you dispute that the impression given by the statement is fundamentally false, even if the exact numbers are correct?</p>
<p>Why are we singling out rifles?</p>
<p>Also, stating the obvious, I have never heard of a drive-by bludgeoning.</p>
<p>Back to the actual subject of this thread, a medical examiner today called GZ’s injuries “insignificant” and said they could not have been caused by more than two hits–hardly the “raining down blows” suggested by Jonathan Good.</p>
<p>Kluge, I can’t even imagine. I respect your right to not own a gun completely. I’m just asking for the same respect to decide for myself. </p>
<p>My experience around people with guns in Idaho and Nevada has been completely consistent with Poetgrl’s. </p>
<p>It took my getting into concealed carry the last few years for me to finally come around to accepting it. I don’t carry, but if I had my own family I would in a few instances.</p>
<p>Sally I thought that the Medical Examiner was one of the worst for the defense I’ve seen so far.</p>
<p>“I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people…To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” - George Mason</p>
<p>Just so you can be sure, “militia” quite literally meant every man willing to fight if needed. It takes a language expert to know the meanings of words 200 years ago, but I’ve read it several times and it’s consistent with many written works of the founders. The militia refers to teens to able bodied older men. There was no standing army in those days. </p>
<p>[A</a> Treasury of Quotes About Our 2nd Amendment | Jen Kuznicki](<a href=“http://jenkuznicki.com/2013/01/a-treasury-of-quotes-about-our-2nd-amendment/]A”>http://jenkuznicki.com/2013/01/a-treasury-of-quotes-about-our-2nd-amendment/)</p>
<p>[Second</a> Amendment quotes by founding fathers](<a href=“http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman/quotes.htm]Second”>http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman/quotes.htm)</p>
<p>Poetgrl also makes a good point, that gun owners should call out Z because he is painting a bad picture of gun owners. Everything I’ve heard is that you do not act any different while carrying than you would without. Zimmerman was stupid, but he didn’t do anything illegal by following TM, unless he provoked him of course.</p>
<p>Raiders, the blog you quote is just a private blog of a random tea party Republican. It is not a news source. You may want to re-read the ToS regarding posting private blogs and also a decision by CC to avoid politics.</p>
<p>Quotes are quotes, as long as they are real quotes I see no difference in the source. I’d pull them from a far left site if any had these quotes. As for posting a link to a blog, I do apologize, my mistake. </p>
<p>Speaking on the intention of the word militia is not political, it’s historical! </p>
<p>The thread has gone astray, I am hoping we can recover before we are too late.</p>
<p>I agree Raiders.</p>
<p>Responsible pro second amendment gun owners are pro universal, in-depth background checks. They are also against behavior like Zimmerman’s because it is the height of irresponsibility.</p>
<p>Even if what Z says Trayvon did is what he did, he never would have done that with a police officer. (I don’t believe he attacked. I happen to believe Rachel when she says he was confronted by Z. I also agree with the ME that his injuries are laughable, and with the police officer who thought Trayvon was just a skinny kid.)</p>
<p>But, even if Trayvon did sucker punch him. If he was approached by a police officer, who might not even approach him, due to profiling issues, btw, he wouldn’t have done this.</p>
<p>And I don’t believe a guy like Z would have gotten out of his car and followed without a gun.</p>
<p>And, THAT is why these laws are bad.</p>
<p>Yes, I realize quotes are quotes. However, when you link to a blatantly political site, it’s not a vetted source, a primary source or a news source. As the ToS say “Links to non-authoritative sites like blogs, personal sites, etc., can’t be researched for validity on an individual basis and hence are not allowed.”</p>
<p>I realize you’re genuinely trying to be helpful, but this site is just some random person’s blog. She does not have any credentials that are vetted or overseen by others. It may be true, false, or some of both.</p>
<p>Here is my conspiracy theory take at this trial so far. In short, the prosecutors are throwing the trial. They are simply going through the motion and are making no honest attempt to win this case. The main reason they are doing this is because they originally determined that it was not a case that they could win and they directed the police to drop the charge very early on in the process. They might be wanting to show their boss that they were right originally.</p>
<p>From what the defense lawyer is saying, it is probably a day or two left of presentation by the prosecutors (they have the list of things that the prosecutors said they would present). So far, most of the evidences were more favorable to the defense. Their star witness who originally wanted to arrest actually appears to be the star witness for defense. The terrible mistake of not objecting the crucial part of Serino testimony just tells all about how the prosecutors hearts are just not in it in this case.</p>
<p>So far, I did not see any push on potential lie of the leaving the car to look at sign, or the dispatcher telling GZ to stop following, or 911 call timeline, no careful examination of the locations of objects in relations to where GZ said where the first punch started, or the fact that there is no GZ DNA on TM, or how about the screams, etc… Maybe they are coming, but I have a feeling that the prosecutors are going to rest with nothing else much.</p>
<p>"… gun owners should call out Z because he is painting a bad picture of gun owners. "</p>
<p>This was the reaction of CT gun owners to Mrs. Lanza’s failure to secure legally-owned guns from her deranged son Adam.</p>
<p>The first lists the direct source the quote is taken from. If they have to be deleted that’s fine. A quick google can show many sites claiming the same quotes, I even found a few written by newspaper writers but they aren’t the ones I was looking for. </p>
<p>Should be noted that the Supreme Court has since interpreted otherwise, but I feel like a quick read of the founders leaves no room for interpretation. Just my opinion.</p>
<p>ttparent-Prosecution is so bad that I’ve thought that myself.</p>
<p>Yes, the militia is the people. The problem I see with claiming the 2nd amendment means we shouldn’t have gun control is the wording of the full amendment. </p>
<p>“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”</p>
<p>Those who think there should be NO gun control only pay attention to the second prhase - but what about the opening - a WELL REGULATED militia. If we assume that all members of the potential militia may own and use guns, we are still obliged to regulate that militia. That’s what gun control is about. Controlling the people with the guns. Maybe we need to reframe the debate to be about militia regulation, not gun control.</p>
<p>I really don’t know how this case is going to end, but for me the issue isn’t really the individual case. It’s the gun laws, and the Stand Your Ground laws. Did GZ believe his life was in danger - it is quite possible he did. But it is also possible that his belief was irrational. If so, perhaps an insanity defense would be more appropriate, rather than self-defense.</p>
<p>
Or they just aren’t terribly competent. It wouldn’t be surprising if the best and the brightest were not working for Seminole County, while the defense attorneys are of a higher caliber. I thought the OJ trial was decided more by poor prosecution than by good defense, and that looks like the case here. In any event, I think the case is as good as over. Can’t wait til it actually is and the news isn’t dominated by this story.</p>
<p>I would think GZ would be a pariah to the NRA also. “My name is GZ and I’m a proud member of the NRA. I shot an unarmed kid and got away with it, and I’m here to tell you how to do that too.”</p>
<p>(FWIW I know lots of long-time NRA members, and they’re NOTHING like GZ. YMMV.)</p>
<p>On GZ pulling out his cell phone—I noted GZ’s report about going for his cell phone when allegedly confronted by TM. He gave more detail than one would normally provide, (common with deception). Along the lines of, “I had to pull the cell phone out because I had put it in the other pocket because…”</p>
<p>as others have said, why wouldn’t he have the cell phone out, for quick access to tell the NEN where to meet him. ya know, the address he was looking for.</p>
<p>I believe he showed the gun to TM. I think that fits with his state of mind that he wanted to “show this punk” who was in charge, and not let him “get away” I don’t think GZ wanted or planned to kill TM but I do think he wanted to intimidate him and hold him for the cops, as hero.</p>
<p>after all, if GZ’s true goal was to reduce burglaries, why not simply identify himself as the neighborhood watch and attempt to assess whether the “punk” was dangerous, ie. if TM heard GZ identify his purpose then he might have then responded by saying “I’m visiting my dad at 301 Twin Rivers, I can show you, I mean no harm.”</p>
<p>also GZ might have wanted to hide that he showed TM the gun for obvious reasons,but could be why his best friend reported that TM grabbed the gun. If TM had previously seen the gun, he would have been even more likely to try to grab it in a scuffle.</p>
<p>my thoughts…</p>