<p>
</p>
<p>A better name would reflect that BCEagle91 is refuting opinions with facts (as we know them at this time) supported by links. </p>
<p>I don’t like Zimmerman any more than anyone else does, but I also don’t like a lynch mob going after him.</p>
<p>Guns fired at close range will leave powder burns and debris on the target. If they found those it was likely fired at very close range.</p>
<p>[Gunshot</a> Residue - FirearmsID.com](<a href=“http://www.firearmsid.com/A_distanceGSR.htm]Gunshot”>Gunshot Residue - FirearmsID.com)</p>
<p>dadx, I agree that “intermediate range” sounds like a few feet, at least. That’s what I thought initially when I heard about the forensics report. But I have read that “intermediate range” has a specific meaning in forensics and it is not what it sounds like to us.</p>
<p>I doubt that either Zimmerman or Martin are (were) either complete saints or complete jerks. People who have (for whatever reason) aligned themselves with one “side” or the other seem to feel the need to defame the “other” and beatify “their guy.” </p>
<p>That’s what makes the case so tragic. Take the gun out of the equation and both of the imperfect but not worthless people are still walking around. Add a gun and one’s dead and the other’s life is in ruins. It’s not about Trayvon Martin and how he did or did not react to being followed by George Zimmerman. It’s not about who was screaming or how bad Zimmerman’s cuts and bruises were. It’s not about how the confrontation between the two of them went down in terms of who said what to who and who hit who first. It’s all about the gun.</p>
<p>
This displays a typical pro-gun mentality. I can’t say if having a gun in the glove box would actually make you feel “happy,” but I can say that having a gun in your glove box would significantly increase the likelihood that you would feel “dead.”</p>
<p>The gun nut’s vision of this event is that you pull your trusty handgun out of your glove box, confront “the bad guy”, and either shoot him or dominate him. Yay! You’re a hero!</p>
<p>This was the mentality which George Zimmerman was evidencing the night he met Trayvon Martin. Except, having a gun made Zimmerman foolishly bold and aggressive, precipitating a fight that didn’t need to happen. And since there was a gun involved, one person ended up dead. </p>
<p>That’s what happens in the real world when people have a gun in their glove box, or waistband. They get foolishly bold and aggressive, overestimating their competence, understanding and control of the situation, and lives are ended and ruined.</p>
<p>You pull that gun out of your glove box and people start shooting. Chances are good that you or your wife are among the people who get shot. This makes you happy?</p>
<p>honestly, I know how to shoot and how to handle a weapon, and I can’t think of one situation where I would be “happy I had a gun in my glove compartment.”</p>
<p>I agree with you Kluge. The whole problem here is the gun. Take the gun out of the equation and Z becomes less vigilant and maybe, may…be, calls the police. Trayvon Martin makes it home, and everyone continues on with their less than perfect lives.</p>
<p>The guns are the problem. The guns in so many human equations are the problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? I know of a situation.</p>
<p>A friend’s car stalled on the highway. She used her phone and her husband was on his way when a man stopped and got out of his car. He asked if she needed help. She answered him through the car window that help was on the way. He turned around, but instead of leaving he picked up a big rock and turned back towards her to break the car window. By the time he turned around she was pointing her gun at him. He dropped the rock and he fled back the way he came.</p>
<p>Had that been you I bet you’d have been glad to have your gun.</p>
<p>If your car stalls on the highway you are in far more danger of being accidentally hit by someone who doesn’t realize your car is not in motion. Especially at night, in the rain, etc. Get out of your car, walk at least 50 feet in front of it, and wait for the police, tow truck, AAA, whoever from that safe distance. </p>
<p>If you have a gun, you can always bring it with you.</p>
<p>Great story, Allthis. It’s even possible that it’s true. But unlikely. My guess is that you actually heard the story from a “friend of a friend.” It’s a classic FOAF urban myth. I’ve never been told a story like that from the person it actually happened to. (I’ve heard the story that way, but with a few questions it becomes clear that it “really” happened to a FOAF.)</p>
<p>Gun nuts feed on those stories. And like I said, a few (very few) are actually true. The reality is that the far more likely result of your friend having a gun is that Mr. Friend, Friend Jr., or Friend herself is the one who ends up being shot. Fatal accidents, suicide, bad judgment, mental impairment, you name it - owning a gun radically increases the odds of bad things happening to you and your loved ones. The adolescent fantasy of shooting (or scaring off) “the bad guy” almost never happens in real life. The other stuff? All the time.</p>
<p>In a similar vein: It’s also not true that 2 million (or whatever current number you’ve been fed) crimes each year are “prevented” by “good guys” with their trusty guns. Another myth - with a gloss of academic BS ladled over it. Owning a gun shortens your life expectancy, and the life expectancy of your family members, pure and simple.</p>
<p>Zimmerman v. Martin is the reality of the gun nuts’ utopia of widespread gun ownership.</p>
<p>It is a waste of time to pontificate about the gun being the problem. Obviously, no one would have been shot if the gun wasn’t there, but it was lawfully present. Get over it. </p>
<p>If Trayvon hadn’t been there, he would not be dead. If Zimmerman hadn’t been there, Trayvon wouldn’t be dead. If Trayvon had had a gun, Zimmerman might be dead. If Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, Zimmerman might be dead. If the police had shown up sooner, no one would be dead. If more people had been walking around in the area, no one would be dead. If the parties had been nicer to each other, no one would be dead. </p>
<p>What is the point in going on about hypotheticals that are irrelevant?</p>
<p>I’ve never kept a gun in the house or car. Husband has guns he keeps at a shooting club, where they shoot at birds and sometimes even hit them.</p>
<p>I know how to shoot because my father kept guns, and you can’t live in a house with guns and not know how to handle them.</p>
<p>Even in a house where people are taught from a young age how to handle guns, a cousin lost his eye. Knowing how to handle weapons, unless you are in the armed forces, or in the police, sane people understand that guns are not really going to save you. But, sure, the gun Zimmerman was carrying was used “in self defense” but that situation never would have arisen without the gun being there to begin with.</p>
<p>Bill Cosby gave an interesting interview about having a gun in the service and what it made him start to think just because he had it. If you are walking around with a hammer in your hand, you are really going to notice the nails that need to be pounded in to the wood. If you just painted one room of your house, you will see all the other places you need to paint your house. The ‘way’ you see things is influenced by the tools you carry.</p>
<p>Guns make you more suspicious and you do stupid things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is your husband more suspicious and does he do stupid things because he owns a gun?</p>
<p>No. He does not keep guns in the house. he keeps them at his hunting club, where, yes, they do stupid things like chase birds and shoot at them.</p>
<p>would he get suspicious and do something stupid if he had a gun in his glove compartment? I don’t know. I don’t want to find out, and neither does he.</p>
<p>
It’s a waste of time to talk about this event without focusing on the gun. Zimmerman had good reason to be there. Martin had good reason to be there. They were living their lives. The exact details of what happened are not ever going to be proven to the satisfaction of anyone who has an opinion - that’s what you should “get over” instead of “pontificating” about it.</p>
<p>The one clear lesson to be learned is the impact of carrying a gun on two regular people who were just going about their lives. Like I said, the details (which we’ll never be sure about anyway) aren’t important. The one fact we are sure of is. That’s why guns nuts keep muddying the water with talk about how Zimmerman might have been “justified” somehow in shooting Martin. They don’t want to talk about the elephant in the room: Without the gun, Zimmerman would not have gotten out of his car and followed Martin and ended up killing him. poetgrl is right - when you carry a gun you see targets. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people?” Well, people with guns kill people, that’s for sure. And this guy with a gun killed someone who wouldn’t be dead if Zimmerman didn’t carry a gun, plain and simple. So why was the presence of the gun “lawful?” </p>
<p>That’s the really interesting discussion that gun nuts don’t want America to have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well if you don’t know, then why do you proclaim to know that "guns make you more suspicious and you do stupid things? Does that statement apply to everyone else who owns a gun but not to your husband?</p>
<p>kluge,</p>
<p>There is absolutely no way you or anyone else can know for sure that Zimmerman would not have been killed that night if he had not had that gun with him. People are murdered twice a day from being hit in the face and head. You have no facts upon which to base your conclusion that Zimmerman would not have followed Martin in exactly the same way whether he had been armed or not. You just don’t know.</p>
<p>The gun being lawfully present begs the question if the law is appropriate. Of course, guns will be central to many discussions as long as they’re enshrined in the Constitution, but it will take many more deaths before we broach that subject.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bay, the FIRST stupid thing would be to carry the gun around. For one thing, it would not be the kind of gun you use to chase around birds. For another, the ONLY reason for that gun is to shoot at people.</p>
<p>My husband does not own the kind of guns that are made to shoot at people. </p>
<p>Also, I don’t agree with you. I think it is shoddy thinking on your part to believe that a gun involved in any altercation does not put lives in danger. Guns made to shoot at people put people’s lives at risk. They are called deadly weapons for a reason.</p>
<p>Absent the gun, nobody in this case dies. Nobody, in fact, even gets hit in the face.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Zimmerman claimed to carry his gun because he was threatened by some pit bulls in the neighborhood. So you are wrong on that one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you have absolutely no facts to base that statement upon. It is your opinion, which you are entitled to. But it is no more valid than this statement: Absent the gun, Zimmerman would have been killed by Trayvon slamming his head into the ground and punching him in the face.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read more: [What</a> Zimmerman, Martin medical reports tell us and the media didn’t | Fox News](<a href=“What Zimmerman, Martin medical reports tell us and the media didn't | Fox News”>What Zimmerman, Martin medical reports tell us and the media didn't | Fox News)</p>
<p>“break the skin on multiple knuckles.” </p>
<p>Not true - look at the report. It says - a 1/4 x 1/8 inch small abrasion on his left fourth finger.</p>
<p>Please show me where the report says bloody knuckles or broken skin on multiple knuckles.</p>