Dr Paul is the man

I think comparing the act of following someone down a street is very different and much less threatening than the act of knocking someone to the ground and hitting them repeatedly, but that's me.

And your comment about fearfulness be an excuse for homicide is very interesting and not untrue. I think this is where a jury decides whether there was enough cause for fear of one's life that ultimately decides whose guilty or innocent. There are few instances of true black and white in this world (no racial reference intended). There are mostly various shades of gray.


On a slightly separate note, i would like to think that if i were walking down a street, someone jumped on me, and started hitting me in the face, that i could shoot him and not get jailed for murder.

Also, food for thought... I wonder if this story would be as famous or controversial if Zimmerman were able to fight Martin off, accidentally killing him in the struggle (this time with his hands).

Interesting, we are to know the severity of the beating we are receiving in advance to acting upon it? So how severely must one be beaten before utilizing deadly force? Where exactly should the line be drawn? At what point should one must wait until before his/her life feels threatened?

With disregard to race, Zimmerman may have pursued against advice, but did that really warrant the beating? Again, perhaps i missed something here, but didn't Zimmerman get jumped? The pursuit was reckless, but the shot was in self defense. Neither one broke any laws until the beating started from what i understand.

The weapon zimmerman had did not come into play until he was being flogged, or did i miss something here? If he had it on him, it was "concealed", meaning "hidden", yes? Therefore Martin did not know Zimmerman was carrying. Martin possibly he suspected he was being followed, but i fail to see that as justification for beating his head into a sidewalk.

Again, unless Zimmerman had his gun drawn there was no reason to jump him. And if this were perceived as a threat, should Martin have not called the police himself?

interesting flip to that; if martin had not jumped zimmerman, and proceeded to beating the crap out of him, zimmerman wouldn't have needed to use the firearm he was carrying... no?

Seems quite clear when you hold both parties to the same standard...

I love this mentality:

- America, violence is ok, but GUN violence needs our attention.

- You can beat people to death, but shooting them is wrong.

- People should be punished for not being helpless victims

double post

True. I agree completely.

I seem to remember a few folks at our founding who supported small government, individual independence, and low taxes for this very reason. The best one to govern ones own life 90% of the time, is oneself. After all, "if people cannot be trusted to govern themselves, then how can they be entrusted with the government of others?"

This is why people should vigilant in the maintaining his or her own freedom.

Indeed sir, indeed.

This is well worth mentioning again as people are forgetting the value of independence and the personal liberty required to achieve this independence. Kudos Conrad.

I would like to point out that his is the idea of socialism/communism at its most extreme.

However this example is definitely something to think about.

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'" (Free enterprise)

~ Thomas Jefferson

I do believe i owe you a drink, sir.

Indeed

and i cant help but wonder if she brought HER guns to this funeral...

My use of the term "overwhelming" was merely to point out my hypothesis on a greater number than 51% of parents not wanting their kids to tote around loaded guns. The attempt at trying to spin my words on this is a nice try and would be called a "red herring", unless, of course, you disagree with the statement, in which case i would question what leads you to such a disbelief. In either case, you then proceed to spinning my acknowledgement on this into a personal attack on you.

Your question baits a reader into two ultimatums, #1 being that one believes that children should carry loaded guns everywhere, or you believe that gun laws curb gun violence. Then it proceeds to making you support whichever side you pick whether or not you believe in it. Critical Thinking is a class required in our school systems (in maine anyhow) and your question (or baited statement) violates logic on several counts according to the professor/textbooks. Therefore, it should not be used in a logical/productive debate.

I would have liked to have an intelligent, productive debate on this topic as i feel the notion of forcing further gun control is irresponsible and illogical based on statistics of gun violence.

It seems that the method of arguing you have fallen into involves twisting words to make people seem "hypocritical". And, as you have pointed out, you believe that a hypocritical action or statement renders all other actions or statements illogical. Fortunately, to those in a logical state of mind this strategy of yours is painfully obvious.

Therefore, it appears that an attempt to have a productive debate here is impossible and therefore deserves no more of my attention.

You see, this statement right here. You are trying to attack me based on something that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. I am sorry if I upset you, no offense was intended, but lets try to stay on topic here. This comment was utterly pointless.




Right here, i was merely responding to your wondering "how i seemed to know what parents are thinking" (which is another desperate attempt at an attack at my credibility). Based on crime reports there was no drop or rise in violence correlating with new laws prohibiting kids from bringing guns to school. (Remember i couldn't seem to find any before 1990?) Therefore, it was either the children who were already doing the right thing, or the parents. Unless you have a counter to that.



I believe i mentioned earlier where this argument also has little to do with the topic area because kids do not have the same rights adults making this inapplicable in reality. It not only falls under the critical thinking fallacy of straw-man (i think that's what its called), but also falls under another fallacy (or fallacy category) of oversimplification. Therefore this question cannot be answered honestly as either answer literally puts words in my mouth that i disagree with. The question is a trap.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of parents agree not to let their kids tote around loaded firearms everywhere they go. If they did not agree on this said rule, then perhaps it was the kids themselves just decided it was not a good idea to stash a gun in his/her backpack. Either way, it apparently worked the same with laws as it did without laws.

Again the issue i had is in the phrase "gun violence", for it technically isn't what i would be afraid of in a school with armed kids. It would be accidents and misuse. Perhaps there would be more violence if kids had guns. I don't really know.

Again, I do find it difficult to give my opinion on such matters without first educating myself on it. After looking over the information at hand i can then proceed to formulate a cause/effect hypothesis thereby giving an " educated opinion". An uneducated opinion would fall under the category of "knee jerk reaction" would it not?

It appears we had a temporary breakdown in our communication nonetheless.

Unfortunately this mindset involves little logic. Because someone did something you disagree with does not mean that everything he/she says is untrue.

Just an FYI, i checked the video that brought about this belief. The weapon they found in the car was a semi-auto shotgun. The action did not match the AR style rifles when the officer was clearing it.