The media keeps mentioning that Zimmerman was carrying a "fully loaded pistol with a round ...

[spin]

in the chamber." The insinuation is that Zimmerman was unusually bloodthirsty and carried his pistol in an unusual manner.

Out of curiosity how many posters here who have a carry permit have a round in the chamber when they carry their weapon?

I'm a wheel gunner which means I prefer a revolver to a semi-auto pistol. I carry my revolvers with their cylinders full and if I pull the trigger I expect to hear a loud noise as my revolvers lack thumb or grip safeties common on many pistols.

My son in law carries his Glock G27 and his Ruger LCP with a full magazine and without a round in the chamber. He assures me that he can chamber a round using only one hand with the assistance of his belt or the pocket of his pants. I have no wish to see him demonstrate this "skill" as I fear he might have an accidental discharge.

[rrneck]

1. When I had a carry permit it was a 1911 cocked and locked with a round in the chamber. nt

[spin]

7. When I first got a carry permit I also carried a cocked and locked 1911 ...

with a round in the chamber. I rarely carried it as a full sized .45 auto is a heavy weapon that is uncomfortable to pack.

After several years I discovered that a .38 S&W Model 642 Airweight revolver is a very light and convenient carry handgun especially in Florida. Obviously it lacks the stopping power, the range, the capacity and the accuracy of the 1911 but I don't expect to have to defend myself from an attacker who is 25 yards away. It is a mouse gun but the first rule of a gun fight is to have a gun. Plus, to be honest, I don't really expect that I will have to use my handgun for self defense.

Today there are a number of light pistols that are comfortable to carry. I may eventually decide to buy one.

[rrneck]

31. I agree

Most of the reason for the 1911 was I'm too much of a cheap bastard to get something better.

[tularetom]

2. Hammer down on an empty chamber for single action revolvers

That's the only kind of handgun I ever carry anywhere.

[gejohnston]

4. why I like the New Model Rugers.

Even the new Bearcat has a transfer bar. If I had a Colt or it's Italian copies, I would too.

[gejohnston]

3. almost everything the media is saying is wrong

and doesn't remotely match what happened in court or what the evidence shows. That is almost always, if not always, true. That is part of the problem with trial by media and people confusing speculation with fact and evidence.
It isn't new nor is it unique to this case. I had a 1st Sgt that noticed the same thing when he was on the Chicago Seven jury.
That is why I watched the live feed and read legal blogs by working lawyers instead of paying attention to what the brain dead cable shows or partisan media says.

[jehop61]

5. oh, wow

You guys are really, really tough! Big men with small . . .

[premium]

14. Oooooooooooooh, the penis reference,

how original. T

[CokeMachine]

75. Are you projecting?? nt

[rdharma]

6. The round in the chamber isn't what makes Zimmerman look "bloodthirsty".....

The fact that Zimmerman was following a teenager with a concealed weapon, who was doing nothing wrong,....... does.

[Scuba]

9. Bingo.

[spin]

11. I will buy that as I would have never followed Martin ...

after being instructed by the police to not do so.

However the prosecuting attorney and the media are definitely trying to convince people that the way Zimmerman chose to carry his pistol was unusual. Some people carry without a round in the chamber but I suspect most carry with a full magazine and a round in the chamber.

On the other hand it is fairly common for the military to require a pistol to be carried without a round in the chamber in many nations.

[gejohnston]

22. there is no evidence that he did

that is what has been speculated, but not proven. The State made no effort to provide evidence of that. The jury can't consider it. After watching the evidence hearing on TM's phone, which was excluded, I came to the conclusion that TM layed and wait to attack as Zimmerman said. The data dump showed that TM liked beating the shit out of people, which is part of why he was suspended from school.
The phone issue is why Corey's IT person got fired and the prosecutors facing sanctions for hiding and destoying evidence. Regardless of the verdict, that was a reversible error.

[spin]

51. I think you have followed the trial far closer than I have. ...

I have mainly watched the talking heads discussing the case and much depends on which cable news channel I watch as all they appear to have an agenda. I have watched CNN, MSNBC and Fox.

I just heard about Corey's IT person as they were discussing him on CNN.

If I was on the jury, I would have to vote that Zimmerman is not guilty as in my opinion the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[gejohnston]

85. I watched the whole thing live stream

and read some of the legal blogs like Talk Left.

Not only did they not prove their case, their own witnesses backed up the defense, and they had to try to impeach them on redirect. They basically tried to raise reasonable doubt of Z's innocence. Their star witness admitted to lying under oath earlier and was caught in a couple of mis statements otherwise. Even if I remove the evidence that the defense could not get in, yeah I watched those hearings too, and saw just what the jury saw I would have to vote innocent. There were a couple of things that are reversible error. The IT guy ratted out the prosecution for hiding and destroying exculpatory evidence. The guy he ratted out is in deep shit.

I stand by my odds:
0 chance murder two
10 percent manslaughter
80 percent overturn due to misconduct or reversible error.

The five percent increase is based on Trayvon's phone contents.

I long ago came to the conclusion that talking heads were usually full of shit. Be it ignorance or sticking to a narrative, I have no idea. Nancy Grace got in an argument with some guy about if the Kel Teck PF9 has an external safety or not. She was wrong.

[spin]

90. I heard a reporter state that Zimmerman used a TEC-9 yesterday. ...

Considering how much firearm knowledge the average reporter has, I was not surprised.

However most of the legal experts that appeared on the various programs agreed the the prosecution bit off too much when they went for murder two. Many felt the case should have never went to trial considering the amount of evidence.

[gejohnston]

91. Alan Dershowitz put it best last year.

[spin]

92. Thanks. That was a very interesting video. (n/t)

[gejohnston]

15. I don't know

he yelled for help for 40 seconds while Martin was pounding his head in the concrete before he fired. That was in trial evidence. I wouldn't call that blood thirsty.

[rdharma]

21. I wouldn't call that the truth.

Of course, most of Zimmerman's story isn't.

[gejohnston]

27. the trial evidence showed otherwise

I sat through the whole thing. The State proved nothing. They said he lied, but never said about what or prove that he did.
It is a matter of do I believe Ben Crump and Angela Corey, who was called out by real lawyers like Allen Dershowitz as being full of shit, or my lying eyes and ears?

Unless you watched the whole thing word for word and know what you are talking about, I'm not discussing it.

[rdharma]

32. According to Allan Dershowitz, OJ Simpson was also not guilty! nt

[gejohnston]

35. and?

where did he say that? The State of California failed to prove its case didn't it? LA's crime lab was as unprofessional as Seminole County's wasn't it? Leaving wet clothes in plastic for a month does wonders for DNA doesn't it?

[bunnies]

37. Kinda hard to pound someones head on the sidewalk

when youre this far away from it.

[gejohnston]

40. depends on how the body moved.

It really isn't that far. Really doesn't matter. Eyewitnesses saw Martin having pinned down and punching him in the face. That was a prosecution witness. You are assuming that the trial evidence contradicts.

[bunnies]

41. Im going by Zimmermans own account of what happened.

Not one witness saw his head being bashed into the sidewalk. Not one.

[gejohnston]

43. two.

John Good was one of them that saw Martin beating Zimmerman. Medical experts backed it up, including and ME that sent international war criminals to prison, the part about the sidewalk.

[blm]

108. No, they said it was consistent with it. It was also consistent with Zimmerman

stumbling and hitting the sidewalk when the struggle first ensued.

BTW - Do the children in your town have child safety instructors visit their schools every year to teach children that when faced with a situation where an adult stranger follows them and gets close enough to grab them the young person needs to fight, kick, scream?

What do they teach in your town? What did you teach your children?

Young people aren't old enough to own a gun, are they? They have no choice but to fight with what they have. Personally, I am probably more of a fighter than Trayvon was...see, I would have used the ice tea can as a weapon. Imagine that - Trayvon didn't even instinctively grab a weapon that he had in his own pocket. I would have and bashed Zimmerman repeatedly over the head with it - then Zimmerman would have shot me. Because he could and there'd be legions of morons in this country who would defend his right to do so because I bashed his head with a can of ice tea when he got close enough to grab me, because I should have done whatever an adult stranger wanted, as they teach in YOUR town, eh?

[gejohnston]

112. which one said falling,

Actually, Trayvon was quite the fighter. Had his phone data been admitted, which will be the subject to a prosecutor misconduct hearing afterward and a reversible error, his texts mentioned him bragging about beating the shit out of people. Oh, then there is the illegal gun thing. You are basing a lot on speculation.
The photo you have been seeing is a pic when he was 12.
Besides, it doesn't change the eye witnesses seeing Trayvon beat shit out of him for almost one minute. What was really disgusting was one of the Martin personal injury lawyers telling Piers Morgan that Zimmerman should have endured until the cops got there.

Thing is, it was the prosecutor that asked about the "falling on the sidewalk" which amounted to trying to show reasonable doubt of innocence. The State is supposed to prove stuff not find stupid shit to poke holes in their own case.

[doc03]

52. If that is the case how did TM body get at least 6 feet from the concrete walk?

[gejohnston]

87. the you tube channel "thecount"

has a complete library of the whole thing. DiMaio explains it in great detail better than I could if you have the time.
http://news.yahoo.com/expert-bolsters-zimmerman-account-trayvon-martin-shooting-005644637.html
Before working for Corey, Valerie Rao was fired from another county for unsanitary conditions. Her testimony was based on looking at a couple of photos.

[doc03]

121. Wow seems like DiMaio made an awful lot of assumptions to support

the COPs and Zimmerman's account of the incident. Martin was on top from what Zimmerman says. Wasn't he found face down with his arms under his body? It seems to me if he was on top Zimmerman would have rolled him off and he would be lying on his back or side. Zimmerman also said he put his arms out to the side and somehow they got under him. Also the picture I saw his body was at least 6 feet or more from the sidewalk and he apparently assumes he just happened to crawl that for I guess. I figure the medical examineers are prejudiced in trying to support the COPs version of the shooting.

[gejohnston]

122. Florida MEs

Seminole and Duvall Counties crime labs needs a serious house cleaning and training program. I hate to imagine what Citrus, Dixie, or Sumter counties would be like.

There were two witnesses plus the stains that show Martin was on top.

given his resume after he retired alone, he knows more on the subject than I ever will. For me to say he is full of shit would be like a creationist debating a leading evolutionary biologist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio

[Lizzie Poppet]

24. I largely agree.

A chambered round is SOP for most modern and semi-modern handguns. GZ carrying that way means nothing.

I do, however, agree that it seems like he was looking for a confrontation...and got what he was looking for. When it was evident he bit off more than he could chew, he used deadly force. That may prove to be legal under FL law, but in my view it's not ethical...not when the person with whom he initiated the conflict was doing nothing wrong.

GZ may not have intended to kill anyone, but he obviously intended to start shit with TM (as indicated by the fact that he did so). I very much doubt that he didn't realize that starting shit with someone while carrying a weapon could potentially lead to use of that weapon. Thus while bloodletting might not have been his intent, he had to have been okay with the possibility.

This is where I have serious problems with what GZ did. If you are going to carry a weapon, and you understand that among the ramifications of that choice is that you may end up killing someone, then you have a solemn responsibility to avoid behaving in a way that initiates conflict. Your moral responsibility is to only use that weapon in genuine self defense...and in my view that does not include situations in which a conflict you started turns physical.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

71. There isn't a more concise way to state that.

+ 1

[Eleanors38]

115. I agree with your assessment. Zimmerman did not

follow the basic recommendation for dealing with a threat of confrontation: avoid it. That said, I'm not sure his actions are a crime, and I have my doubts there will be a conviction.

[Lizzie Poppet]

116. I concur, re: chance of conviction.

The more I read about the case and about Florida law, the less likely a conviction seems. I would consider that an injustice.

[Starboard Tack]

134. Excellently put. If all CC'ers were like you, we'd have few problems.

Unfortunately, it only takes a small percentage of GZ types and the 2 dufuses who chased each other around Milwaukee, to mess it up for everyone.

You really nail it here

"If you are going to carry a weapon, and you understand that among the ramifications of that choice is that you may end up killing someone, then you have a solemn responsibility to avoid behaving in a way that initiates conflict. Your moral responsibility is to only use that weapon in genuine self defense...and in my view that does not include situations in which a conflict you started turns physical."

If only 2% of those who carry don't understand that, then we have a huge problem.

[gejohnston]

137. So you agree with Daryl Parks

when he told Piers Morgan that Zimmerman should have endured the assault until the cops got there? Just asking. I thought it was pretty disgusting when I saw it. Coming one of the Martin family lawyer, I found it beyond disgusting.

[Starboard Tack]

149. I don't watch commercial TV

and I don't know what Parks said has anything to do with LizzyPoppet's post.

Zimmerman should never have been anywhere near Martin. Shouldn't have stalked him. Shouldn't have profiled him. Shouldn't have provoked him. Shouldn't have killed him.

Shouldn't have been acquitted. Shouldn't have his gun and CC permit returned to him.

That's what I found disgusting.

[gejohnston]

150. if you have evidence of

Stalking, Angela Corey sure could have used your help. Who knows, it might help her from being disbarred. So you are saying that people should not move freely in their neighborhood, or do you need to clarify?

[Starboard Tack]

151. The trial was a sham. Why are you defending this killer?

[gejohnston]

152. have you watched it?

I think not. I am defending the facts,and the evidence presented. No more, no less. Nobody has the right to beat anyone's head in the concrete. What evidence did the state show that proved their case?

[Starboard Tack]

153. I watched and read enough to see it was a show trial.

The prosecution was paying lip service to an outraged public. It was a joke.
Everyone has the right to defend himself against a gun toting vigilante racist asshole. If that means using the only tool available, then so be it.

[gejohnston]

154. you're part right

but you don't anything near the whole story.

[Starboard Tack]

155. Only one guy knows the whole story. The one who killed the kid.

Unless you are referring to the rest of the story, like a jury of 6 white women deciding that an armed man is justified in profiling, following and eventually shooting to death an unarmed BLACK teenager.
What else do you think I need to know?

[gejohnston]

156. so if some meth head that is larger and

in better shape than me is pounding my head against a tree or road, I'll remember he is unarmed and follow Mr. Parks' advice.

[Jenoch]

157. Would the trial have

gone better if the lawyers and judge had been wearing powdered wigs?

[Starboard Tack]

159. Damn, Jenoch, your wit is killing me!

How did you develop such finely honed sense of humor? And there was I thinking you were a anglophobe, when all along it was all about....hmm...right... what was it all about? Now I forget. Shame on me!

[Jenoch]

160. You could clear things up quite easily.

By the way, I'm no Anglophobe. My best buddy growing up had an English mother. She had a green card and for decades kept her English citizenship out of respect for her parents (I guess it was something they wished her to do). After they were gone, she went ahead and got her U.S. citizenship. What was your experience?

[Starboard Tack]

161. You crack me up!

My best buddy's mother was English! Congratulations! Obviously there is no need to question your great love of the English, especially those who eventually become US citizens.
There is nothing to clear up here, my friend. You seem to be under the illusion that becoming a US citizen entails giving up your British citizenship. It doesn't. US law allows multiple citizenship. I have a friend who has four.
Maybe your buddy, or his mother, was lying about accommodating her parents. Or maybe they got your number too.

[Jenoch]

162. I never said anything about her giving up

her British citizenship, I said she did not become an American citizen out of respect for her parents. By the way, you are completely wrong about U.S. law. The U.S. government is only concerned with whether or not you are a U.S. citizen, either you are or you are not. There is no such thing as dual citizenship in the U.S. I also never indicated I had a great love for the English, I was just attempting to point out that I am not an Anglophobe, that would require that I care when I do not. How many 'citizenships' do you have and are any of them U.S.?

[Starboard Tack]

163. Why would her parents object to her getting US citizenship?

And how would they know? They don't exactly tattoo it on your forehead. I think you made the whole story up to cover your bigotry.

Now, for your education and enlightenment.

Dual citizenship.
Dual citizenship means persons can travel with two passports; the United States permits dual citizenship.

A person who is considered a citizen by more than one nation has dual citizenship. It is possible for a United States citizen to have dual citizenship; this can be achieved in various ways, such as by birth in the United States to a parent, or in certain circumstances even grandparent, who is a citizen of a foreign country, by birth in another country to a parent(s) who is/are a United States citizen/s, or by having parents who are citizens of different countries. Anyone who becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen is required to renounce any prior "allegiance" to other countries during the naturalization ceremony;[15] however, this renunciation of allegiance is generally not considered renunciation of citizenship to those countries.[16]

Under certain circumstances there are relevant distinctions between dual citizens who hold a "substantial contact" with a country, for example by holding a passport or by residing in the country for a certain period of time, and those who do not. For example, under the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax (HEART) Act of 2008, U.S. citizins who have a substantial contact with the United States (and this includes all holders of a U.S. passport) are subject to the expatriation tax if they give up their citizenship, whereas persons who became a citizen of the United States by birth but have had no substantial contact to the U.S. are not affected by this tax. Similarly, the United States consider holders of a foreign passport to have a substantial contact with the country that issued the passport, which may preclude security clearance.

United States citizens are required by federal law to identify themselves with a U.S. passport, not with any other foreign passport, when entering or leaving the US.[17] The Supreme Court case of Afroyim v. Rusk declared that a U.S. citizen did not lose his citizenship by voting in an election in a foreign country, or by acquiring foreign citizenship, if such acts did not require him to explicitly renounce his U.S. citizenship. U.S. citizens who have dual citizenship do not lose their United States citizenship unless they renounce it officially.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_the_United_States#Dual_citizenship

I find your personal questions offensive.
Would you also like to know how many children I have and all their citizenships? Would you also like their SS#s and bank account details?
You need to get a life, buddy, and stick to what concerns you.

[Jenoch]

164. I have no idea

why she thought the way that she did, I only wrote what I know.

You implied I might be Anglophobic. I am not. I do not particulary like the U.S. Constitution being criticized by a non U.S. citizen.

I am correct about dual citizenship. The U.S. does not care whether or not someone is a citizen of another country when applying situations where citizenship is of a concern, either someone is a U.S. citizen or they are not. A U.S. citizen can vote for example, it does not matter whether or not they also hold citizenship to another country.

[Starboard Tack]

165. Apart from your assumption that I am not a citizen, your bigotry is in full display.

"I do not particulary like the U.S. Constitution being criticized by a non U.S. citizen."
What kind of fascist crap is that? You check the citizenship papers of everyone you have a fucking discussion with? Lordy, lordy, the US constitution was written to protect us from people like you.

Have a nice life!

[Jenoch]

166. Nope, I do nothing of the sort.

I don't particularly like it when Pierz Morgan, a guy who was basically run out of England, is on CNN bashing the U.S. Constitution. I don't think that makes me a bigot.

[Starboard Tack]

167. Yes it does.

You can dislike him as an individual, but you attach your dislike of him to the fact that he is from England. I'm not familiar with the man and have no idea if he was "run out" of England. Your quote about your buddy's mother is as lame as saying "Some of my best friends are black/Jewish/Muslim".

Now you associate me with someone I don't know, but you dislike, just because we share an English heritage. That, Sir, makes you a bigot.

The fact that you don't want to discuss the US Constitution with anyone who is not a citizen makes you a bigot. Do you think freedom of speech only applies to card carrying members? Do you think that's what the constitution was all about?

You need to learn a little more about the country you profess to love. How it produced a mindset like yours, boggles my mind, for you do your country no service when you show such intolerance of those who were not born here.

[gejohnston]

168. He got canned from the Mirror

after publishing photos that falsely accused Queen's Lancashire Regiment of war crimes. Since he has .
been here, instead of having cogent arguments he only stammers "you are a stupid man" if he doesn't like what the other has to say. Really a disgusting pompous boor my opinion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3716151.stm

[Starboard Tack]

170. As I said, I'm not familiar with the man.

Are you explaining why jenoch is a bigot, or are you apologizing for his bigotry?

[gejohnston]

172. neither, that is between you two.

My opinion of Piers Morgan has nothing to do with his birth country.

[Starboard Tack]

175. Thanks. I didn't think you were defending his bigotry.

That's a knot he tied himself up with and is now trying to wriggle out of.

Comparing me to some supposed asshole from the UK is like a Brit accusing any American for the sins of Reagan or Dubya.

[Jenoch]

169. I'm sorry you misunderstood me.

My point was that a non U.S. citizen was on a nightly program criticizing the U.S. Constitution. Where his citizenship is from is not the point.

[Starboard Tack]

171. I don't think I misunderstood you at all.

Free speech is not something exclusive to US citizens. Neither is the constitution.

[Jenoch]

173. "Free speech is not something exclusive to US citizens. Neither is the constitution."

I never wrote or implied otherwise.

[Starboard Tack]

174. Right, just that you are offended when non-citizens dare to discuss the constitution.

[Jenoch]

176. Discuss is one thing,

attack is another.

[Starboard Tack]

178. By attack, I assume you mean "disagree", or "criticize"

Wouldn't want that would we?

[gejohnston]

158. Yes it was a sham, but not in the way you think.

Last edited Wed Jul 17, 2013, 01:45 AM - Edit history (1)

In spite of what the talking heads were saying, the Seminole County DA still was investigating, had a grand jury going. They were busting their ass to do the job right. It might have taken awhile for an arrest if needed, but you can investigate a long time to build a case until you arrest. Then your time is limited because of the 6th Amendment. If you arrest, you have six months to have your case, If not, you walk, (In case you are asking, if Manning is convicted, the Court of Military Appeals should over turn it for that and various other reasons. But since they have been using the UCMJ and BoR as toilet paper so far, I'm not counting on it.)

Instead, political pressure wanted an arrest, never mind the evidence. Police chief gets fired following the letter of the law and Rick Scott appoints Angela Corey to be special prosecutor. She shut down the grand jury and wrote a flimsy probable cause affidavit for arrest. She did what she always does: over charge to get a plea, if that fails, violate ethical standards and the law to make up for lack of evidence. Things like not turning over exculpatory evidence etc. That works on over worked and young public defenders, but if the case goes national and attracts attention from people like Alan Dershowitz, and the defendant has good lawyers, you get busted. She and the lead prosecutor was busted. This wasn't supposed to have been a fair trial. So, even if he were convicted, it would have been overturned.

This case was upside down, defense taking evidence, prosecution appealing to emotion. It was so upside down the media and politicians stayed out of it, there might have been enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, disproving self defense, in a fair trial. No guarantees, but maybe. Instead he gets a rigged trial with sleazy prosecutors and overcomes. Ironic isn't it? That isn't the liberal or conservative version, that is what happened. Of course you are not going to see this on Current or MSNBC, or the MSM because that narrative thing. Once you buy it, you are stuck with it. You are not going to see it on Fox because, well, they are fucking stupid and think Disney is the capitol.

Whatever black and brown Floridians in Seminole and Duvall counties think of Zimmerman, their hatred for Corey and her side kick goes much deeper and longer. Right now, she is facing a wrongful termination suit and, if Dershowitz has his way, disbarment over Trayvon's phone.

[premium]

8. I don't carry anymore,

but during my career with the Forest Service, after we were issued the S&W 9mm, and subsequently the Glock .45, I always carried one in the chamber and I would add a another round to the mag.

Before being issued handguns, we had to supply our own, I carried a wheelgun and I kept all 6 rounds in it, I knew guys who would take 1 round out and keep the hammer on an empty cylinder hole.

[Gman]

10. Carrying a round in the chamber is irresponsible

Whoever was teaching your son in law at a young age about gun safety failed.

Don't mean to blunt, but just the truth.

[gejohnston]

13. then you might have a talk almost every police force

in the world. Sorry, not the truth.

[Gman]

100. Ha! Like a cop is going to listen

Much less be responsible. I've never met one yet that was responsible, much less truthful.

[gejohnston]

101. Well, at least the Isreali military agrees with you

so, what about revolvers which have five to six chambers, all with rounds in them?

[Gman]

103. Is that what you're calling a revolver?

Totally different concept for a gun.

[gejohnston]

107. seriously?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolver
http://science.howstuffworks.com/revolver2.htm

[Gman]

109. Yes, I know what a revolver is. I used to own a .357 S&W

sold it years ago.

But your semantics "game" was very obvious.

[gejohnston]

113. not at all,

how is a DAO semi auto different than a double action revolver having a round in battery or the next one?

[dookers]

136. The Israeli are starting to carry chambered handguns

Now that modern handguns have firing pin safeties, it is perfectly safe to carry with a round chambered. The idea of carrying unchambered came from older guns which weren't drop safe.

[DragonBorn]

179. Your bias is showing . . .

Someone doesn't seem to like the police. . .

And the whole carrying a revolver with one in the chamber is not anymore dangerous that carrying a semi auto with one in the chamber since. The carrying a revolver with the hammer down on an empty cylinder was the norm before transfer bar safeties and hammer block safeties became more prevalent as found in modern revolvers and is a holdover from the past.

[Gman]

181. I've known and drank beer with many cops over the years

And don't think any of them should be allowed to carry a gun. There are very few stable enough to be allowed to carry. Hell, even the crazy ones will tell you that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

16. I strongly disagree.

As said in my other post, carrying with a round in battery is how many (if not most) semi-automatic pistols are designed to be used. A pistol intended for self-defense should be able to be deployed with one hand. Otherwise when you need to rack the slide to chamber a round, you may not have both hands to do it with.

I don't disagree about the son-in-law's gun safety, though. Trying to rack the slide by catching it on the belt is sketchy enough under calm, controlled conditions. Under the extreme stress of an actual fight, it's insanely stupid.

[Gman]

102. We'll agree to disagree

Now lets go get a beer!

[Lizzie Poppet]

104. Works for me!

And since I intend to spend the rest of the evening watching soccer, a beer sounds like a great idea!

[premium]

17. Just about every LEO I knew,

Federal/State/Local always carried with one in the chamber, so, I guess we were all irresponsible?

[Gman]

18. Guess so

[premium]

19. I strongly disagree,

and I do believe I have far more experience in this.

[Gman]

64. I'm sure you think you have more experience

but really all you can do is think and that is not an argument for being responsible and not keeping a round chambered.

[Lizzie Poppet]

83. I can't even make that parse.

Um...what are you getting at with that?

You've presented no argument for why carrying with a round chambered is a bad practice, just unsupported assertions that it's "irresponsible." You've offered no substantive reply to it being pointed out that there are all kinds of perfectly plausible scenarios in which it would be impossible (or the nearest thing to it) to chamber a round if attacked.

You can call it "irresponsible" until you're blue in the face, but until you actually make (and defend) a substantive argument for that assertion, you've got nothing.

[Travis_0004]

124. And you seem to think you have more experience than every law enforcement officer in the country.

[spin]

23. My son in law carries without a round in the chamber. ...

When I carried a Colt .45 auto, I carried it in "Condition 1."

Condition 1 - The pistol has cartridges in the magazine, a cartridge is chambered, the hammer is cocked, and the safety is in the up (safe) position. Also known as the "cocked and locked" carry condition.
http://www.survivalblog.com/2010/05/understanding-the-carry-condit.html

I would suspect that you would consider me irresponsible. I will point out that the Colt .45 auto has a thumb and a grip safety. Many gun experts consider it safe to carry in Condition 1 as long as it is in a quality holster designed for the weapon.

If I owned a Glock, I would be more hesitant to carry it with a round in the chamber unless it had a "New York Trigger". Gocks are very reliable and accurate firearms. You either love or hate them. I fall into the hate category.

I carry my revolver fully loaded. Do you consider that irresponsible?

[Gman]

26. Undoubtedly yes.

[doc03]

54. With the weopon Z was using carrying a round in the chamber is very

safe. It takes a deliberate trigger pull to fire the gun and since the hammer will not stay in the cocked position it can't even fire if dropped.

[Gman]

67. I really haven't paid attention to what kind of gun Z carried as I think that's irrelevant

to the case. If in fact what you say about the gun is true then I would agree that it's fine to keep a round chambered in that kind of gun.

[doc03]

72. I agree it is not relevant to the case. But he was carrying a Kel Tech 9mm

and I think it is similar to my Ruger LCP 380 in it is always in the uncocked position and it takes considerable
trigger pull and trigger travel to cock and fire the gun.

[GreenStormCloud]

96. I have a Kel-Tec P3AT.

It is identical to the Kel-Tec PF9, except that mine is .380 while the Pf9 is 9mm. They can only be fired by the trigger being pulled. They won't go off by themselves or by being bumped.

[Gman]

97. That's a good thing

Again, an exception to my feeling about keeping a round in the chamber.

[GreenStormCloud]

99. All modern design guns are drop safe.

That means that they are so designed that they won't go off if dropped. Gun owners don't like guns that can go off by being bumped and avoid buying them. And gun companies can be sued for making a gun that isn't drop safe.

[oneshooter]

119. I normally carry a SIG220, 45 cal. I carry 7+1 and use the de-cocking lever to lower the hammer

after loading. The 220 is a DA/SA that has a hammer block that engages when the de-cocking lever is used. Extremely safe as the hammer cannot touch the firing pin. If the "old" way of using the thumb to lower the hammer is used the face of the hammer is in contact with the rear of the firing pin. Not Safe.

[GreenStormCloud]

95. Mr. Mugger, please wait a bit while I rack the slide. (Sarcasm)

Everybody that carries does so with a round in the chamber.

[SlimJimmy]

106. Not even close to the truth. The modern semi-autos with decocking levers make carrying

with a round in the chamber extremely safe and efficient. The hammer is forward and there is no possibility of an accidental discharge through dropping the weapon or jamming it against something. It becomes, in essence, a single action revolver on the first shot. No less safe than a fully loaded revolver.

[Skeeter Barnes]

123. What if the first round fails to feed? Hope you got time to clear the malfunction.

You don't carry with one in the chamber, you might as well carry a brick in your pocket and use that for defense.

If someone is too scared to carry the gun loaded, they shouldn't carry it at all.

I bet you also think firing warning shots is a good idea.

[AtheistCrusader]

139. Except that this isn't the truth.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. The media is, as usual, profoundly ignorant of firearms.

But agenda-driven reporters seldom bypass an opportunity to advance said agenda...and this is a perfect example. Most any semi-automatic pistol is intended to be carried with a round in battery and safety engaged (passive or active...). A pistol carried for self-defense should be able to be deployed, under extreme stress, with one hand. Your son-in-law's odd notions aside, that's not happening without a round in the chamber on a semi-auto.

But hey, this is a perfectly good way to demonize gun owners, and the fact that said demonization has precisely zero basis in fact is hardly unusual.

For the record, I have a carry permit, and have two pistols suitable for that purpose. The 1911 is carried with a chambered round, hammer back, and both safeties (active lever and passive grip safety) engaged. The little S&W 908 is a DA design, and it's carried with a round chambered and the safety lever engaged, but with the (spurless) hammer down, relying on the long DA first trigger pull as an additional safety.

[Gman]

25. Given that your first responsibility is to retreat

And it takes only a second or so to chamber a round and release the safety. not keeping one in the chamber is the responsible thing to do. The line about "I didn't know the safety was off" has been said after many were killed or injured.

[gejohnston]

28. actually no.

assuming the law says "duty to retreat" you only have to if you can safely. Since duty to retreat exists almost nowhere in the US either by statute or common law (California is common law SYG) you are wrong.

[Gman]

30. No, I'm very right

Although I should add "if possible". And just because a law does or does not exist, does not dictate what is the the not only responsible but ethical thing to do.

[gejohnston]

33. It may be ethical, often it is tactically better,

but it should never be legally required.
My first duty is to survive with little or no harm. Your sense of civility is nowhere near that.

[Gman]

36. Oh, I think it is.

Your very first responsibility is to not have yourself in that situation to begin with. But it is also to be aware of your surroundings and exit the area before anything happens.

[gejohnston]

38. I agree with that, although that is simply smart.

that is also basic survival instinct. That is called avoidance, deterrence, and deescalation. That said, If I want to go for a walk in my neighborhood in 3AM I have every right to.

[Gman]

50. I agree you have a right to take a walk at 3

If its somewhere you know is safe, that's fine. If its somewhere not safe, and or if you know or should know its not safe, the responsible thing is to go to another safe area and walk. Taking a walk in an area you know is not safe with a loaded gun with one in the chamber could arguably be seen as looking for trouble, your right to do so not withstanding. If you go walk in unsafe areas at 3am enough times and shoot someone enough times you could arguably be labeled a vigilante, regsrdless of your right to do so.

[gejohnston]

55. vigilante has a specific meaning

the media will say whatever. We had a few here that called anyone,no matter how legitimate the shooting was, that. My area the danger is coyotes and maybe a lost meth head.

[Travis_0004]

78. Are you saying Trayvon should have left the area, since he didn't trust Zimmerman?

If so, why did he stick around for four minutes after the phone call?

[Gman]

61. The duty to retreat exists everywhere, all the time in the country

The law does not always reflect what the moral and responsible thing to do is. You have the responsibility to retreat (assuming if possible) so that no one gets hurt unnecessarily.

[gejohnston]

68. responsibility to whom?

And does that include your house?

[SlimJimmy]

111. No you don't. You may want that to be true, and you may wish that the law

required it, but it doesn't. You do not have a legal duty to retreat in most jurisdictions. It may be the smart thing to do, but it's not required. No LE entity may use that as a basis to charge anyone with a crime involving a firearm.

[Lizzie Poppet]

29. Again, I strongly disagree.

I don't dispute that the more ethical (and probably tactical) course of action is to attempt to retreat, but it's no stretch at all to envision scenarios where that's not physically possible. There is simply no compelling reason not to have a round chambered in a pistol designed for carrying in that condition...and lots of reasons to do so, as previously described.


And if someone is so irresponsible and/or poorly trained that they're handling a firearm without knowing whether or not the safety is engaged, then they shouldn't be handling firearms at all. I see no reason to base my own decisions on such matters on what idiots might do.

[Gman]

63. Retreat may not always be possible. Regardless, if one is aware of their surroundings

they will see trouble coming that may or may not be escapable (if that's not a word it should be). If The responsible gun owner, while being aware of his/her surroundings and assesses and determines that retreat may not be possible, then and only then should a round be chambered.

[Lizzie Poppet]

76. That does nothing to help in the scenarios in which there ISN'T time to do so.

Thus I will continue to disagree vehemently. I reiterate: there are no compelling reasons not to carry in Condition One, and multiple good reasons to do so.

[GreenStormCloud]

98. Have you ever heard of the Tuller drill?

In about 1.5 seconds a healthy young male can cover 7 yards and stab/hit you. Can you grab the gun, draw, and rack the slide in that time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

[Gman]

105. No but did you see the police video where

One guy in a training class was given gun with blanks and a while after they returned to class a ski masked guy came in and started shooting? Others in the class were in on it and fell over when "shot", started screaming, etc. The masked guy "shot" several" people over 7-8 seconds then walked over to the guy with huge gun and "shot" him last while he pissed all over himself trying to get the gun out?

Someone carrying as protection for everyone else is a farce.

[gejohnston]

110. that was also rigged

and the one guy was set up to fail with the gloves. Mass shooters are not firearms trainers, and usually know less than anyone else.
It was staged, like the GM exploding gas tanks.

[Gman]

127. Yeah right.. Of course

[gejohnston]

129. then you didn't watch the video

and saw the gloves and heavy clothing as GSC described.

[CokeMachine]

132. You convinced me -- not!! nt

[GreenStormCloud]

125. That was a rigged test.

The shooter was police firearms insttuctor. Real Life: Mass shooters aren't that highly trained..

The shooter knows that a student will attempt to return fire. Real Life: Mass shooters think that they will be the only ones with a gun, and they are always correct. The ARE the only ones with a gun.

The shooter knows where the armed student is sitting. Real Life: The mass shooter would not know that.

The armed student is wearing highly restrictive clothing, including heavy gloves. Real Life: Normal clothes, no gloves indoors.

[Gman]

126. Yeah right of course

It was rigged. Mmmm hmmmm....

[GreenStormCloud]

131. Then try refuting my list of the ways it was rigged.

Your denial is not a rebuttal.

[CokeMachine]

133. Once again you convinced me -- you can do better -- please try. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

140. It was 'rigged' in a couple ways.

Primary way was; the shooter knows WHO to shoot every single time. Comes in the door, shoots the instructor, shoots the CPL student with the gun. Every single time. Shooter knows the target.

In real life, the shooter does NOT know who in the room might be an armed responder. Their performance is, in real life, much worse than that.

[Gman]

141. All of that is irrelevant

And it's a complete fantasy to think the shooter would think about who might have a gun. The shooter is insane. That's why he's doing it. He doesn't reason past his own warped motives. If anything he wants to get killed. Geez! If anything the shooter had a plan, executed it and the guy couldn't do a thing about it.

And the order people get shot in is one of many of the orders the shooter can choose from. The point is the guy that was supposed to do something Bout it with his gun pissed all over himself.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. it's entirely relevant.

No one claims guns are magic talismans that ward off attack. You need time and opportunity to deploy it. This scenario denied the carrying individual time and opportunity. Crafted specifically to do so.

If you remove that single variable from the test, you completely change the outcome. In real life, we practice this as volunteers with the police department, in mock hostage situations with simunitions.

Since the cops don't know who to shoot, upon entry, some of us have managed to wipe out entire trained police entry teams. Initiative is a major factor in these events.

[Gman]

143. Absolutely. You need time to assess the situation

And if you don't do it fast enough, you,'re one if the first shot if that's what he does. Don't forget to note that when the gunman turned away from the door, people were headed for it.

The point is it doesn't matter if the bad luck says you're one of the first shot. Maybe you get lucky Bd he goes the other way and you get a few more seconds.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. Entirely true.

It's a very fluid scenario, when properly administered.

The scenario, as administered by ABC, shows only that in a VERY limited timespan, an armed bystander fails to react fast enough, if the second target. I would agree with that, since we who carry don't do so with a gun in our hands at the ready at all times. Even a driver of a car needs 1.5s to react to something happening right in front of them, under most conditions.

The gloves, shirt tucked in, and the back-of-mind realization that their 'defensive gun' is loaded with fake ammo are merely side issues to the test as administered.

[DragonBorn]

180. It was rigged.

The people given the firearms:
1. Had no formal training on firing a handgun.
2. No practice drawing from a holster.
3. No practice drawing from that particular holster and dealing with its safety retention.
5. No practice drawing from a concealed holster.
6. Had gloves on which not only identified them as the armed subject but also reduced their tactile feedback further delaying them from drawing their firearm.
7. The shooter was a police firearms instructor.

A similar "test" would be putting someone with 0 driving experience on a professional track and telling them to go do some laps in a Formula 1 car and when they lost control of the car or couldn't beat the time limit claiming that "See no one can do that! Its impossible!"

[SlimJimmy]

114. An edged weapon attack can be successful from as much as twenty-five feet away

against an armed and prepared person. Multiple videos prove it. Here's just one.

[doc03]

57. I don't think the weopon Z was using has a safety, it's a double action only weopon like my Ruger

LCP.

[oneshooter]

120. "first responsibility is to retreat" where is that written?

[geckosfeet]

20. Always. When I carry there is a round in the chamber.

The idea is to be as prepared as possible.

[ileus]

34. While I don't carry a weapon, I do carry a PSD with one in the pipe.

If you're not chambered you're hosed. My little LCP requires a pretty good technique to chamber a round properly.

[4 more years]

39. Gun on board

The only time I have a gun in the car is if I have to go into an unsafe area of town. If my car gets a flat or breaks down I will not be considered prey. I don't carry a gun because of the ramifications that a gun can cause. These are the ramifications that GZ got himself into. A gun gives an untrained person a false sense of security. If GZ did not have a gun would he have got out of car and followed TM ? Stupid George did not even know if TM was packing a gun. Just a stupid untrained person acting as a cop an things escalated way to fast and got out of control. Stupid George may be alive but his life is over . Is packing a gun really worth it in the long run ?

[gejohnston]

42. you are assuming a lot about a person

you know nothing about. Everything you think you know was a PR job by Ben Crump and a PR firm he hired. I'm guessing you don't know the facts of the case. That's why I don't like to discuss this with people who didn't watch the trial, and just based a decision on infotainment media and speculation.

Since he was attacked after he stopped following, and? Stupid George would have been dead or suffer brain damage if he had not fired. What I found discussing was Crump's law partner telling Piers Morgan that since Zimmerman knew the cops were on the way, he should have let TM beat the shit out of him until they got there.

[rdharma]

45. Zimmerman wasn't following Trayvon........

..... he was "just walking in the same direction".

You have to be intentionally blind not to see through Zimmerman's prepared "weasel wording".

[gejohnston]

47. no, I just don't make unfounded assumptions

or listen to people who do. Sorry, his minor inconsistencies show that nothing was scripted or prepared. Investigation 101. Kind hard to believe a narrative about racist teabaggers, when he turns out to be a registered Democrat that campaigned for Democratic candidates. Voter registration records are public record in Florida.

There was no evidence that he continued to follow when attacked, since the attack was near the "T"

The key thing is that the State had to prove a case BARD. At no time did they say in their closing that they proved anything, which they couldn't because they didn't. Ultimately, that is the only thing that matters.

[rdharma]

60. Zimmerman a registered Democrat in Florida?

Oh, puhlease! That's an old trick that righties use. Florida is a closed primary state. By being a "registered Democrat" in Florida, that allows him to vote in Democratic primaries.

It's a tactic recommended by Rush Limbaugh himself to throw a monkey wrench into the works!

What Democratic candidates did Zimmerman campaign for, eh?

[gejohnston]

65. sorry Iooked it up

Has been since 2002. Don't know what Rush said. Don't care either.

[rdharma]

69. Yup! I didn't think you would like to hear about that tactic.

And you can't tell us who Zimmerman "campaigned for"?

[gejohnston]

73. what ever local were running

Can you provide evidence to the contrary? Next time I'm in that county, I'll get a screen shot if they let me.

[rdharma]

74. I can't prove that aliens from outer space crashed at Roswell, NM either......

..... 'cause it didn't happen!

[gejohnston]

80. drive to the

Seminole County Court House. Not hard.

[armueller2001]

58. I choose to carry as often as legally allowed.

In fact, I consider it irresponsible not to. My family deserves to be protected, and unfortunately crime isn't confined to "unsafe" neighborhoods. My crystal ball doesn't work that well either so I can't just carry when I know trouble will make itself known.

Your mileage may vary.

[4 more years]

59. To carry or not to carry, you decide.

Just hope you are well trained and didn't just go out and buy it. I just hope for the safety of your kids you have a trigger lock if you keep the gun in your house. No excuses not to have one.

[armueller2001]

62. Definitely well trained and prepared

to defend my family. Glad to live in a state like Texas where individuals are free to choose how to defend themselves.

[4 more years]

66. Texas

That 's the same state that gave us Bush 2 and t Boone Pickens . Did you build your bunker yet and buy an armored car with a machine gun , grenade glove box and bullet proof glass ? If not get cracking .

[armueller2001]

70. No bunker

although I will be sinking a tornado shelter/safe room in the garage floor or backyard when we get a house. No need for an armored car, and machine guns are prohibitively expensive. But it is nice to know I have the freedom to choose those options. Could also get a tank, bazooka, or jet fighter with proper permitting and $$$

My sidearm suits me just fine as a PDA (personal defense apparatus).

[Starboard Tack]

135. I'm confused

Do you carry to protect yourself or your family? If you are "prepared" to defend your family, which is highly commendable, btw, and a natural duty, IMO, are you implying that you accompany them everywhere they go, or do you protect them only when they are with you?

[4 more years]

44. One punch by a 150lb boy knocked stupid George down.

Then in 2 seconds jumped on top and hit him 20 times. If you believe this is really what happened to a guy that was in very good shape at the time. Remember he was taking lessons on self defense or mma for the past 8 months 3 times a week 2 hours a lesson. He was not sucker punched because that's the first thing you learn to avoid in class. Go clean your gun and try not to shoot yourself.

[gejohnston]

46. didn't follow the trial did you?

didn't think so.
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2013/07/10/news/doc51dd89f00a34a248396860.txt
BTW, partisan rags don't count.

[4 more years]

49. Trainer admits he is a bad trainer

Ok after 8 months trainer said stupid George went from .5 to 1 in a scale of 10 in his ability to fight. Look women 110 lb women take these classes and learn . Stupid George learned a lot more then the defense wanted you to know. How's the gun cleaning going ?

[Gman]

53. When you irresponsibly keep one in the chamber

Things like this happen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362493/Jon-Andrew-Meyer-Jr-using-rifle-crutch-fired-killed-Alysa-Bobbitt.html#ixzz2YwicjCkz

[4 more years]

56. Looks like George's brother.

There are just to many guns for these stupid people to get their claws around.

[Travis_0004]

79. There was more than one irresponsible thing done in that situation.

Let me put it another way. If somebody got in a car wreck while driving drunk, you could say, one should not drive while drunk.

You wouldn't say, 'you should not drive'.

So I can think of many many thigns the guy with the rifle did that were stupid. That doesn't mean a cop, or any citizen with a CCW liscense should not carry with one in the chamber. As long as they have a proper holster, the trigger will not magically get pulled.

[Lizzie Poppet]

82. There is nothing remotely "irresponsible" about keeping one in teh chamber.

No need to repeat our debate on this point, nor is this "proof" that you're wrong, but it should be pointed out that yours is a way-out-in-left-field opinion on this point. The overwhelming majority of experts and the overwhelming majority of carriers recommend carrying with a loaded chamber. Virtually every law enforcement officer does so.

This is for good reason...and moreover, there are no sound reasons not to.

[gejohnston]

88. rifles don't have the safety features pistols have

apples and oranges.

[spin]

93. I am discussing carrying a pistol not a rifle. ...

I believe that a modern pistol can be safely carried in a proper holster designed for the weapon with a round in the chamber.

Modern double action revolvers are normally carried with a full cylinder. Why is that not dangerous?

[MjolnirTime]

77. What a big badass Gun-toting man you are!

Tell us more about your surrogate penis.

[Lizzie Poppet]

81. Nice "contribution" to the thread.

Cliche'd, sexist stereotyping is better suited to teabaggers, not DU'ers. Just sayin'...

[premium]

84. Aaaaaaaaaaaaand another penis reference!

When is your side going to come up with something new?

[Duckhunter935]

86. thats all they have

stupid jokes and some just plain wrong arguments or outright lies. Some around here just fail to answer simple questions. They know when they have been exposed.

[spin]

94. Thanks for the insult. However, let me point out ...

that your insult is hardly original and has been worn out by overuse.

I don't mind getting insulted but it's nice if the insults are fresh and novel. If you can be more creative, I will complement you. I never alert on a post but of course others do, so stay within reasonable limits.

[S_B_Jackson]

89. In my experience, a round in the chamber is not at all unusual...

it seems a bit foolish to think that if you really need to use it, you would first need to chamber a round - something that for semi-automatic pistols requires the use of both hands.

I carry a Sig P245 DA/SA - 6 rounds of Winchester Ranger +P .45 ACP one in the chamber and 5 in the magazine. If I maintain proper awareness of my surroundings, I shouldn't need even that much. However, once or maybe twice a year I have business in a bad part of town, and then I do bring a spare 8 round magazine similarly loaded.

[jeepnstein]

117. The Jury has spoken.

Can't say I'm the least bit surprised. The evidence was vastly different from what some folks were trying to pass off as reality.

[gejohnston]

118. trial by media

always is. Had a 1st Sgt on the Chicago Seven jury, he said the what the media said was nothing like what happened in court. In GD people are still talking about Casey Anthony, but if you can't prove how or when someone died, can't prove a crime was even committed. Besides, the DA was with holding exculpitory evidence, so a conviction wouldn't have mattered.
Like I said in GD
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=536724

[Ed Suspicious]

128. I've been a hunter at points in my life.

The idea of bring a loaded weapon anywhere but in the field runs exactly counter to every message I received in my hunter's safety class. We unloaded or weapons to cross a fence line, we were mindful of where our muzzle pointed, and we always unloaded before casing our guns if we were going to enter a house, car, or business establishment. You fucking wild Wild West freaks walking around with loaded guns are off your rockers. You make the world less safe, not more, fucksticks.

[spin]

130. Thanks for your comment. ...

In passing I should point out that a loaded modern handgun in a proper holster designed for the weapon is considered safe.

When choosing a holster for a firearm, factors of interest include:

Safety - a well designed holster will provide protection to the handgun during insertion into or removal from the holster or while being carried that will: 1. prevent accidental trigger movement; 2. prevent accidental disengagement of the safety mechanism; 3. prevent forward or rearward movement of the hammer. These features will vary greatly as applicable to the action of the handgun. The safety features of a holster very much require that the holster be engineered and designed for each specific manufacture and model of handgun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_holster

I will agree that handguns are extremely dangerous items. While hunters often use handguns in many states it is possible that most hunter safety courses only deal with rifles, shotguns and archery equipment.

Concealed weapons classes are offered and often required for people who wish to obtain a carry permit. They deal with handgun safety and how to carry a use a handgun for self defense. These courses do not recommend that you carry an unloaded handgun until you actually are attacked by a person who intends to seriously injure and kill you and has the capacity to do it. There is a considerable difference between a hunter and a civilian who legally carries a concealed handgun.

From your language it is obvious that nothing I say will change your view and that is fine. You have a right to your opinion.

You do not appear to be a polite individual and perhaps it is best that you have a low opinion of those who legally carry as it may mean that you will never decide to get a carry permit.

[S_B_Jackson]

145. The decision to carry a concealed weapon has a much different basis

than the carrying and use of firearms for hunting. There is much overlap in the rules especially about not handling them unsafely or unnecessarily, and always about being mindful of proper trigger discipline and muzzle control....but you don't carry an unloaded firearm in the field, especially in western states where the possiblity of large predators in addition to game in the area do you? And if after seeing at least the spoor of a large bear, you don't have a chambered round in your firearm(s), then you're not really using due care.

The decision to carry wasn't one lightly arrived at, isn't one that I treat cavalierly, and in making that decision I've grown much, much less inclined to confrontational, not less. I carry sizeable amounts of cash with me often for business, and I often have to travel into or through less than ideal areas of the city. Thus the concern about the potential for unwanted criminal attention is not unwarranted and I carry with those concerns in mind.

[AtheistCrusader]

138. I carry a springfield XD 9mm in condition 0.

That shit has nothing to do with the issue. The only thing in question was; is Zimmerman justified/reasonable in deploying lethal force in self defense against Trayvon Martin?

Jury says 'yes'.

My opinion differs, but I am not on the jury.

[spin]

146. I like the idea of a grip safety. (n/t)

[gejohnston]

147. after watching the trial,

reading the legal blogs etc, Zimmerman deployed lethal force after enduring at least 48 seconds of getting his head pounded in the sidewalk and crying for help. Daryl Parks, Martin family lawyer, told Piers Morgan that Zimmerman should have endured it until the cops got there to pull Trayvon off.
I think at least one of the witnesses should have before the shot was fired.

Did Zimmerman start it? Who knows. The only ear witness that claimed to know couldn't have. Their last phone call ended while Zimmerman was still on the phone with the cop saying "you don't need to do that" and lied under oath twice before. That was the State's star witness.

At the risk of attracting every baiter in the place, I have to go with the jury. That is where the facts and evidence pointed. If I get PPRed because of this, so be it. It is a fact backed up by evidence in a court of law.

[AtheistCrusader]

148. I doubt it.

Opinions are fine. You can back yours up with facts, and my suspicions aside, the state's case was incredibly weak. This was such a grey margin issue, with the lack of witnesses for the initial encounter, I will chalk this up to Blackstone's Formulation:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Zimmerman may have been guilty of something leading up to the fight, (I suspect he may have brandished his weapon, that would explain how Trayvon allegedly knew to grab for it in the scuffle on the ground, even though it was behind his back, but that is just a suspicion) but the state did not prove it to the standard of evidence required, and did not convince the jury.

Presumption of innocence means he is innocent, and a free man.

This legal system is the crown jewel of the West, and I think it will be some time before humans engineer one better. Such is the price of living in a free society.

[upaloopa]

177. I keep saying this but it never sinks in.

Gunners see the world through a different paradigm then most people do. Most people feel a person walking around with a loaded gun and with a round in the chamber as not normal. You see it as an everyday normal occurrence. Get it?

[spin]

182. Perhaps most people where you live feel that way. ...

However if you live in a state like Florida or Texas where concealed carry is common, most people see no major problem with it.

[upaloopa]

184. Go somewhere where the public gather and take your gun out of it's hiding place.

People would be scared shitless and would call 911. That's how unpopular guns are in public.

[spin]

185. That's called brandishing your weapon and and will get you in a world of crap with the police ...

where I live. At the most you can accidentally flash your handgun. For example, you are walking across a parking lot and the wind catches your jacket. Of course if I drew my concealed handgun and starting waving it around in public, someone would call the cops. I would do the same if I saw someone do something this foolish.

If you are in a large box store in Florida there are probably several customers who are legally carrying concealed inside. Of course nobody knows who is carrying.

Let's suppose that you lived in Florida and decided to get a carry permit. Once you did, you decided to brag and show it off to all your friends and co-workers. You would probably find the reaction to be disappointing. Nobody would be impressed and several might tell you they had one too.

[upaloopa]

186. I was using it as an example. Guns are not popular with

the majority of people and it is my guess that if all carriers carried their guns openly there would be new restrictions on carrying a gun right now.

[spin]

187. That depends on where you live. Montana allows open carry but requires a license to carry ...

concealed.

[rl6214]

183. Carry a semi auto

Either a ruger pt111 9mm ten round mag with one in the chamfer or a Rock Island 1911 with an 8 rd mag +1 in chamber. If you don't have one chambered you aren't prepared.