<p>Florida has around 1 million active concealed weapons licenses issued…about 5% of Florida’s 20 million (including every man, woman, and child) residents have a permit. The state does the licensing, not local authorities. Of course millions more in Florida have guns, but no pistol toter permit. There are too many guns floating around in Florida in my opinion.</p>
<p>California has over 55,000 permits issued for twice Florida’s population.</p>
<p>What keeps Zimmerman in the news is that he’s a proxy for the NRA vision of America: “good guys” stopping “bad guys” by shooting them. The reality is that a lot of moronic jerks like GZ consider themselves to be the “good guys.” And the rest of us are all potential “bad guys” in their view.</p>
<p>This makes whatever GZ does a sort of a morality play. When I read somebody writing a pretentious, self-righteous statement about how he carries a gun to protect himself and Second Amendment and police don’t and blah blah blah I see George Zimmerman talking. When gun nuts look in the mirror they see Bruce Willis or Liam Neeson - and the rest of us see George Zimmerman. That’s what keeps him in the news.</p>
<p>frugaldoctor - I’ve lived in California for over 60 years. I don’t feel a need to rely on anything or anybody for my protection; I rely on the fact that in reality there is pretty much nobody trying to do me any harm 99.999% of the time, and during the remaining 0.001% of my life I keep my eyes open. I know many, many Californians and not one of them has ever thwarted a crime with a gun.</p>
<p>Kluge, my best friend from college lives in San Francisco. He scolded me for having the thought of needing weapons and for owning them. I had to remind him that I was the staunch liberal in college who thought the second ammendment should be overturned. Caring for trauma victims (gunshot and assaults) started my path to reconsider my position on the matter. You know, I never thought there was a need to carry a weapon into a movie theater either, but that has changed too. </p>
<p>Regardless, there is a high level of responsibility that need to be demonstrated to continue to carry a concealed weapon. GZ lacks responsibility and should have his permit revoked. I agree that the NRA used him as a poster boy for their advocacy. They picked the wrong guy! Visiting the gun factory was callous. He could have traveled the country as the symbol of the second ammendment for the NRA and earned thousands in the process. Expect FOX News and the NRA will quickly distance themselves from supporting GZ any further. It won’t be pretty for GZ in prison!!</p>
<p>Btw, I have 2 surgeon colleagues of mine who were victims of home invasions. They are now gun owners. I know of 3 other colleagues who thwarted crimes with their guns. 2 of the 3 had to shoot for their safety.</p>
<p>Funny enough it looked to me more like the civil rights community using GZ as a symbol of a white racist child killer who turned out to be a Hispanic nutjob who unfortunately did kill a troubled 17-year old young man in self-defense. Interesting.</p>
<p>I agree he should not have visited the gun factory. He’s an idiot. And so are all of his girlfriends.</p>
<p>Kluge, as someone who has lived in Ca for 25 years, there are many neighborhoods I would not go to without a weapon. I could name a few if you would like.</p>
And you’re afraid of being in California? Where do you live, Honduras?</p>
<p>GP, there are areas that I would be slow to wander around in whether I had a weapon or not. In fact, I’d consider it to be arrogant and foolish to think that my safety would be enhanced by carrying a weapon in some areas.</p>
<p>Kluge, well if I was stranded in a few of these neighborhoods (I am sure you know which neighborhoods I’m talking about) I would feel safer with a gun than without, although it is not my intention to wander around these neighborhoods. Where I live, some of these neighborhoods didn’t exist 20 years ago.</p>
<p>Weapon or not, I still avoid those areas. I carry my day no differently than I would without a weapon. That weapon is there for the exceedingly rare situation that I need to protect my safety. Although rare, sustaining injuries or losing my life isn’t a chance I want to take without having the ability to defend myself.</p>
<p>Goldenpooch, that case horrified me. I live in a very safe neighborhood with a very responsive police force. I didn’t want or have any weapons in my home. But after learning of that Connecticut case and the rash of home invasions occurring even in affluent communities in my city, that changed my perspectives for good. I completely understand that not everyone will make the same choices I have and that is ok.</p>
<p>Years ago a home burglar killed a homeowner in his home that was a block or two away from George Steinbrenner’s Tampa home. Police asked the burglar why he selected that particular house to rob… the killer/burglar said he chose it because it was the darkest, least lit up house in the neighborhood. We always leave our outside lights on nighttime at our home.</p>
<p>Burglars also reported choosing homes that lack screen doors and homes with opened garage doors. As an effort to prevent burglaries, the police in my area will knock on your door at night to alert you that your garage door was left opened.</p>
<p>I’m not against people owning guns for protection, but I do need to understand something: A responsible gun owner should keep his weapon locked and unloaded to avoid accidents. Especially if there are children in the home, or even visitors who could accidentally find it.</p>
<p>So…you’re in your house and someone breaks in. You have to unlock the gun and load it before you can use it for protection. Does the criminal just stand there and wait? It makes more sense to me when you’re out of your house and carrying it. I’m assuming it is then loaded and ready. But at home? Does it just sit around in a drawer ready? Where is it while you’re showering or sleeping? </p>
<p>I’ve read many more stories of innocent people being shot with a loaded gun a child or teen has found than stories where the homeowner protected themselves with that gun.</p>
<p>Flossy, here’s a (very) partial list of people who no doubt considered themselves to be “good guys”: Theodore Wafer, Rodney Peairs, Todd Vriesenga, Thomas Grant.</p>
<p>Like I said: when gun nuts look in the mirror, they see Bruce Willis or Liam Neesen. When I look at them I see George Zimmeman or Rodney Peairs. In real life, the “bad guys” don’t all wear black hats. But people who are shot die regardless of what color hat the guy with the gun thought he was wearing. That’s the real problem.</p>
<p>Frugaldoctor, do you generally make significant decisions based on the worst conceivable but least likely event possible? Do you have a bomb shelter and 3 years worth of food and water stashed somewhere, for example? If your explanation for your decision is what you say it strikes me as a rather emotion-based system of decision making. I try to avoid that, especially when there is a large body of evidence that the “cure” I’m considering has a higher probability of adverse (and even fatal) side effects than the “disease” I’m worried about.</p>
<p>Personally, I have never felt the need for a weapon and realize that I would probably shoot myself in the foot trying to load the thing, but I don’t want to take Frugaldoctors gun away until we are certain that the real bad guys don’t have guns, either. Right now, they have a lot of them.</p>