Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

His wife sleeps with a gun. He's mentioned that before.

What a lovely thought; in bed with guns.

She sure does as we have normally our two personal carry handguns in the bedroom at night and one 12 gauge double barrel shotgun in the bedroom closet.

The other weapons are normally lock up as we figure we do not need the riot shotgun or or any of the other handguns ETC to deal with any likely home invasion.

I would hate to fire too many shotgun rounds in the home as the repair bill would be out of sight in any case.

One friend of mine had a Thompson with a round drum as a home defense weapon but I pointed out to him that a hundred 45 rounds fire inside a home would more the likely be overkill.

But short of seal team six paying us a visit we are fairly secure in our home.

David do you think that is enough ready firepower or not?

Yeah; its good, Bill.

U might wanna consider treating your walls
to retain overpenetrative gunfire.

What r your carry guns, Bill?
With what have u loaded them ?





David

Indeed !

You are the one who keep claiming Zimmerman used bad judgment however as long as that judgment did not result in any illegal act and following Trayvon is not an illegal act he have every right in the world to defense himself if attack.

Now if Zimmerman had attack Trayvon for some strange reason after trying to get the police in the scene he would likely had his gun out and Trayvon would not had been able to knock him to the ground and pound his head into the sidewalk as the picture taken of Zimmerman withing minute show had happen.

All the evidence that is known as well as logic support an attack by Trayvon not Zimmerman.

If we had a problem with burglaries around here (we don 't)
and if some of my nabors chose to look around a lot,
on the alert for trouble, I 'd think it was pretty good.





David

David I think I told you before my carry gun is a smith and western 357 model 19 revolver and my wife gun is a smith and western 38 revolver.

Both guns are loaded with hollow pointed bullets for the most part.

I do not trust any of my semi-automatic guns not to jam at the worst possible moment not even my model 1911 45 and both my wife and I spend enough time at the range that we should hit someone with every shot at close range so we do not need a weapon that can put out a lot of rounds before reloading.

David it break my heart that the laws are such the civil war LeMat revolver/shotgun combination can not be produce in a modern weapon.

What a hell of a defense gun where you not only have nine pistol rounds but one shot gun blast.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The truly unique features of the LeMat are, of course, the two barrels, each serving a different function. A 9-shot cylinder rotated around a center barrel, which was basically a handheld, smoothbore, miniature sawed-off shotgun, which was used to fire grapeshot (buckshot) or a lead ball, or whatever else one could blast out with black powder. The revolver holes lined up with a barrel above the center barrel, and used the more modern system of a percussion revolver. These used lead projectiles loaded on top of a measure of black powder, and fired by having the hammer strike percussion nipple caps made with mercury fulminate. The resulting spark would then ignite the black powder in the barrel. A moveable striker lever on the hammer allowed the user to select between firing the revolver or the center smoothbore barrel. When fully loaded, the user could get off nine shots from the revolver, and one big shot with the center barrel. This made the LeMat a very effective weapon for close-in use.

Taurus makes a home defense .410 pistol with 5 rounds. Each round is a punkin ball and 4 or 5, 00 buckshot. A pistol in a house with masonary walls is a crap shoot that you wont be hit by your own weapons discharge (I dont care if you use an auto or a SMITH AND WESSON (not Western)) . Hollow points jut make more shards winging around the room. May not kill you but its gonna wound you badly. If you use a pistol in the house, consider getting some frangble bullets (These can be made at different hardnesses and shatter ratios).

The above gun has the cylinder and the barrel unconnected like an old gun. I dont know if Id even fire it because sometimes the barrel and cylinder and receiver arent aligned

Sorry but after hitting flesh it is not going to be winging around the room and at room range neither I or my wife are going to be missing.

Even a 380 with frangible ammo is sort of terrifying. Anything that wouldn't stop is something you'd only need to shoot on an African safari or in Alaska.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/ammo_by_anonymous.htm

Handguns

One should carry only hollowpoint ammunition in a defensive handgun. Hollowpoint ammunition has much better stopping power than full metal jacket or round-nose lead, and stopping power is what you need when being assaulted.

The point is not to wound or kill the adversary: the point is to stop him in his tracks and make him cease attacking you. "Stopping power" (sometimes called "knock-down power") refers to a particular bullet's ability to incapacitate an attacker - the greater that ability, the less chance that your attacker will be able to continue shooting, stabbing, or beating you after you have shot him.

Handguns are not death-rays; despite what you see in the movies, the vast majority of people shot with handguns survive (over 80%). Handguns are weak compared to rifles and shotguns, and thus you want every edge you can get. Great ammunition is no more expensive than mediocre ammunition, so carry the best. Rifles and shotguns have stopping power to spare; handguns do not. Thus you must select your handgun load very carefully, and the detail of the handgun ammunition section reflects this.

Hollowpoint ammunition is NOT more lethal than ball (full metal jacket) ammunition. You may have seen media hype about "killer dum-dum bullets" but this is nonsense. Hollowpoint bullets usually expand and stop in the human body, and thus the attacker absorbs much more of the bullet's kinetic energy than if the bullet had merely zipped through him and left two small holes. Hollowpoint ammunition is also safer for all parties concerned.

* You are safer because your attacker is more likely to be incapacitated after one or two shots and thus unable to fire back, stab you, or whatever. The decreased likelihood of your attacker dying from hollowpoint bullets saves you the moral and legal complications and expense you will experience from killing a man.
* Innocent bystanders are safer because hollowpoint bullets are less likely to exit the attacker's body and go on to injure anyone else. The ricochet danger is also much lower than that of ball ammunition, and hollowpoint bullets are less likely to penetrate walls or doors and strike uninvolved third parties. Furthermore, if your foe is incapacitated quickly he won't be spraying wild bullets around, endangering uninvolved third parties.
* Lastly, your attacker is safer because he is far less likely to die from one or two hollowpoint bullets than the five or six round-nose slugs you would have had to fire to put him down. Most gunshot deaths occur from shock and loss of blood, and ball rounds tend to make entry and exit wounds, whereas hollowpoints go in and stay put. An attacker shot twice with ball ammo will probably have four holes in him rather than two, and is thus in far greater danger of death from blood loss. If you can avoid killing your attacker you should, for both moral and legal reasons.

There are some exceptions to the "carry only hollowpoints in a handgun" rule. Some older or cheaper automatic pistols, will jam with hollowpoint rounds. With these guns one must use ball rounds (or "full metal jacket" rounds - the terms are synonymous), and I specify "reliable with ball only" models by caliber. It is crucial for you to test your pistol to make certain it is reliable with specific loads - don't rely on my advice. My life will never depend on the reliability of your handgun. Your life

Pictures of two scrapes or lacerations on the back of Zimmerman's head support nothing--they tell you nothing about what transpired before Zimmerman pulled the trigger. Those pictures are not evidence that Trayvon knocked him to the ground or pounded his head into the sidewalk. Zimmerman could have slipped on wet grass and banged his own noggin on the pavement.

Soon you'll be convinced you saw the entire encounter between Zimmerman and Martin on video tape. You can't separate your fantasies and speculations and assumptions from what actually happened. You don't know what actually happened.

Yes, Trayvon Martin certainly had a right to defend himself from a hothead like George Zimmerman, a man with a history of run-ins with the law because of his problems with anger management.

And you already have evidence that Zimmerman's credibility is suspect. He sat in court, during his bail hearing, and watched his lawyer tell the judge that he was indigent, even though Zimmerman knew he had $200,000+ in his legal defense fund. He didn't just mislead his own lawyer regarding his financial status, he also allowed his lawyer to unknowingly mislead the judge.

All you know is that you own a gun, several of them, and you want to be able to shoot people, claim self defense, and have no one question that.

We know that George Zimmerman committed a homicide, whether that was a legally justified act of self defense has yet to be determined. What you say happened doesn't mean squat. You didn't see what happened.

Bill doesn't seem to understand what qualifies as evidence in a criminal investigation. If Zimmy's attorney says what Bill did in his defense, he'd be laughed out of court.

.

Sure they do they support his version of what happen and once more it is the state repeat the state burden prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman version of self defense is not true.

Sorry this case was created out of political pressure and will not go beyond the self defense hearing.

So fa

Bill, It's one person's word against another; that's a FACT! It's up to the jury to determine who is telling the truth, and who is lying.

.

Sure they do they support his version of what happen and once more it is the state repeat the state burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman version of self defense is not true if it reach a jury.

Sorry this case was created out of political pressures and will not even go beyond the self defense hearing.

So far my predictions had been 100 percent as in DSK would never face a criminal trial and neither will Zimmerman as even more likely then not standards of such a hearing he will prevail.

Political pressure prosecutions will only go so far before having the cases fall apart.

Footnote are you still denying that under Florida current laws it is the state burden to disprove a self defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt or not?

You never been known to be very honest, to say the least, but denying facts that anyone can google is something new for you if that what you still are trying to sell.