Zimmerman was legally armed and presumably had his weapon concealed. Legally carrying a concealed weapon does not constitute aggression. "Instigating a confrontation" is not a criminal offense in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. If you argue with someone for example they do not get permission to punch you and slam your head into concrete.

It certainly seems like GZ is an idiot who could have avoided the situation. He could have greeted MT, introduced himself and then asked him questions. Is it only intelligent wise people who have self defense rights? I don't see proof beyond reasonable doubt that GZ broke any laws.

So would someone punching you in the face and pounding your head on concrete constitute a forceable felony or real threat?

There's a difference between victim blaming and risk assessment. My girls learn ju-jitsu. It's not because I blame girls who get raped (or otherwise attacked) for not knowing self defense, it's a risk mitigation strategy. Ideally nobody would commit rape and it is commendable to work towards that but it hasn't been achieved yet.

Now ju-jitsu will work even if you are wearing revealing clothing. If they get drunk to the point of passing out in the presence of untrusted people ju-jitsu won't help. It's nothing to do with "victim blaming" its about a pragmatic approach as opposed to a moral one. If the thing you're most interested in is finding the right person to blame then in each case you have to wait until after a crime is committed. That's a commendable approach when taken by the courts. Not so commendable when taken by a father who should be advising his daughters on a wise course of action "Of course getting drunk with a crowd of football players doesn't mean you deserve rape, go ahead and have a good time!" Girls who get drunk with crowds of young men don't deserve rape at all but they do increase the odds of it happening.

In the past I have written Job Safety Analyses and Safe Work Method Statements on industrial sites. I suggest you have a look at some material on how to manage risk. It's about prevention and would hopefully help you understand that not everything is about your rights or blame, sometimes it's best to take a pragmatic, preventative approach. Your ER doctor was giving you good advice. I'm sure he would have preferred to give it to you before the accident but you didn't turn up at ER and ask him then, so he gave it to you before your next accident which happened to be right after your last one.

For most use cases for this weapon it could be replaced with a shiv. It gives slightly longer reach but is less concealable. A killing behind security is almost certainly going to be politically or religiously motivated and will happen according to the fanaticism of the assassin rather than the availability of particular weapons. It would potentially enable assassins who were too weak or not confident of their ability with a knife but it isn't really a game changer. It doesn't introduce significant new capability.

Yes, don't want those pesky citizens having freedom, they might abuse it or make wrong choices. Far better to have a rigid system of penalties, diligently enforced. While we're at it, let's ban dancing, who knows what it could lead to.

If you can't text and drive at 10MPH without having an accident (on a three lane highway has been my peak hour experience, no kids chasing balls onto the road) you shouldn't have a license and probably need to be strapped into your chair to have dinner.

I think driverless cars will be a better solution to this problem. As someone who drives quite a lot for my work, I hope the day soon comes it is illegal to drive manually because it is too dangerous compared to our robotic chauffeurs. Judging by the way google navigation works for me, it won't be this year.

In the meantime, I agree with your first two solutions, the third is too drastic. Jail time if you cause an accident while texting perhaps but I don't think someone stuck in walking pace traffic who texts their wife they'll be late deserves jail time.

This statement:

is contradicted by this statement:

It's true that situational awareness will do more for you than being trained but caught unawares. My wife does ju-jutsu training. They teach the women that if they are confronted by a large male attacker, unless they have no other option they should run for the exact reason you bring up, it is hard to land a devastating first blow and the first blow they land will devastate you. I tell her find a weapon, since we have kids and it's likely she won't be able to run without leaving them. Untrained, even with a kitchen knife she's not that scary. I want her trained so that hopefully she could intimidate an attacker and as a last resort have a better chance of landing that first blow.

When I was in my teens I did farm work during holidays that strengthened me quite a bit, so in that case yes, but not because of a "sense of reliance and independence".

Yeah, if that had never happened they'd be totally wrong about it. What ignorant fools! I think I'll plug my ears up and sing "lalalalala" now. Or chant "not listening, not listening".

I did plenty of chores and sport and it never solved any bullying problems for me.

Given opponents of equal fighting skill the larger will tend to win. Not always but it's the way to bet. Being trained to fight to a higher level than your potential opponents is a good way for an individual to overcome bullying but on a larger scale won't solve bullying but can change who the bullies are. There is also a lot of bullying that isn't physical. How do you use self defense classes to combat embarrassing pictures on facebook?

So you'll talk to the parents and if they don't respond to your satisfaction you'll fight them to the death? Unless I've misunderstood, I think you need to revise this plan. If you win, it ends with you in prison and bullies doing whatever they like to your child while you are occupied with much tougher bullies.

It is not legal to own a firearm for self defense in Australia, although it was apparently legal for Susan Falls to use one but illegal to sell to her.

I am neither experiencing nor expressing any agitation and I am still making sense. It would appear that you are trolling.

You could say it like that I suppose, if your intent was to mislead. They used his name as a domain name. You're the one trying to spin.

You apparently haven't read the book. The Wealth of Nations discusses international trade including import duties etc. It was not a society of exclusively locally produced goods. The morality of the population is the morality of the market. If a market has no morality, it is not a reflection on markets it is a reflection on the population.

How many find the site by searching for "independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul" and how many by searching for "Ron Paul". They use his name and reputation to generate hits and then want to sell those hits to him. If their website is so independent, why didn't they put their own name on it instead?