Don't forget televisions. More than 2000 children have died since 2000 from falling televisions: http://theweek.com/article/index/237878/the-shocking-number-of-deaths-caused-by-falling-tvs

You comparing the love of music to playing with an appliance? Sheesh.

I rarely talk to philosophy majors. But when I do I order large fries.

As a paramedic of 16 years who has seen more that a few real gun shot wounds, I can say you don't even get bleeding sometimes. And sometimes you still only might get a trickle of blood. That could have easily been absorbed by clothing.

And with today's 9mm jacketed hollowpoitn ammunition, you won't even get an exit wound. The bullet enters leaving a small hole and then begins to expand as it encounters soft tissue, organs and bone thus dumping its kinetic energy within the body.

So it's entirely plausible that Zimmerman walkd away from the shooting withou as much as 1 drop of Martin's blood on him.

The dispatcher told Zimmerman that they don't need him to follow Martin after he got out of his car. Zimmerman then said he was on his way back to the car. A suggestion or an order from a dispatcher is not the same as an order from a police officer. Even Sanford PD admitted as much. Zimmerman's claim has always been that he only got out of the car to give the dispatcher the best information on the location of Martin.

You think Zimmerman was acting in a predatory fashion while he was actively on the phone with the police?? Did you listen to the tapes? Won't you at least give the man the benefit of the doubt and let the evidence come out for the jury to hear?

An act of self defense is an affirmative defense. You say to the jury, "Yes, I shot this person. But this why..." Self defense is legal in all the states of the Union. Why would it be unfortunate? People seem to think that Florida is somehow special in that you can shoot with impunity even if you just "feel" the least bit threatened. NOT TRUE.

Take New York State, for example. NYS (where I live) has no stand your ground law. The relevant statute says you have a duty to retreat when in public. BUT, it doesn't apply if you can't do so safely, e.g., I have a toddler with me, doing so would mean running into an active highway, I'm in a wheelchair, I'm wearing a cast on an appendage, etc.

In Florida, you have no duty to retreat if you are in a public place where you have every right to be. But all the other other legal standards for acting in self defense still apply. That is, was I the initial aggressor in the confrontation? Did the attacker have the ability to attack? Did he have the opportunity? Was he placing me in jeopardy? Read here: http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

Not only that, but the legal standard would be: what would a reasonable person do at that time under those conditions knowing what the accused knew?

Zimmerman has always articulated from day one that he shot to stop the active attack. That he only got out of his car to give the relevant information to the 911 dispatcher of Martin's whereabouts. That Martin came back to confront ZImmerman, threw a punch and continued to beat him while he was supine on the ground. Being on the ground with an attacker actively slamming your head into the concrete pavement is reason enough for using deadly force to stop and attack.

Zimmerman has never said that he shot Martin for looking suspicious. The media has latched onto speculation --as if it were fact-- that ZImmerman merely shot someone for walking around. The media has put forth the accusation that Stand Your Ground laws allow for this to happen legally when nothing could be further from the truth.

P.S. Guess which state was the first to enact a Stand Your Ground Law? California. Yes. Hardly the red state bastion of the NRA.

Here's a very informative video about what Stan Your Ground laws are really about: http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/stand-ground-laws-self-defense-or-license-kill

I wonder how many Slashotters who are against this measure --even though free speech can cause death and serious injury-- are still for draconian gun control in this or any other country.

Think abuot that...

But.. but.. but.. the gun control people and even Obama say that no hunter needs a AR-15 or "AK-47"! Those are "battlefield" weapons! Those "evil black rifles" don't have any place in a "civilized" society!

1. Just because you a cop does *not* mean you know how to handle guns safely.
2. The box shoulda have been installed somwhere where a standing 3 year could not get to it.

I didn't mislead in any shape or form. An off duty cop is essentially the same as a private citizen with a firarm. No uniform to distinguish him from on duy bretheren; no radio to call for back up or give a description. Concealed carry permit holders can get training in lethal force tactics just like the police can.

But fine, I'll play by your rules. You wan't another example? Here: http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120325/ARTICLES/120329781 Another church incident, another private citizen stopping an attacker armed with a shotgun.

Here's the Huff Po version, sanitzed of any mention of a concealed carry permit holder stoppping the attack: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/25/south-caroline-church-ser_n_1378752.html He was magically "disarmed",

Anders Breivik got all his guns and explosives ingedients legally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik These shootings abroad --in both countries that do and don't have easy access to guns-- are becoming more common. Maybe it's a refelction on society and not access to inanimate objects?

Also, where I live in New York City, that is, we still have very strict gun control and that hasn't done one thing for the massive spike of shotting recently.

Yes, you are correct. Because ordinary people with guns won't know how to react in the presence of criminals with guns and innocent bystanders will get maimed and shot by bullets flying everywhere.

We can't possibly have, say, a 63 year old, getting off 4 shots in under 3 seconds --all of which hit both criminals-- in a crowded internat cafe: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/19035444/customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery

Nope. We will quickly forget the aforementioned incident becuase innocent lives we *not* lost. But gun control advocates will dance in the blood of the victims of the Colorado shooting in an effort to cram more useless gun control down our throats.

Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.

Yes, you are right. Just like and armed churchgoer stopped this attck before anyone got killed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sKQl-Qp5W0 And yes, it was in Colorado as well.

It's too bad the majority of people have been brainwashed over the last 30 years to think that they should never take any active role in defending themselves.

Yes, of course. Becuase had that movie theatre had a sign the gunman would have said "Shucks" and turned right around and found another theatre.