Florida's new law

[rgraham666]

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you guys seem to be ascribing the worst possible mindset and intentions to people.

Have you not at least entertained the idea that you are not seeing the vast majority of people who carry firearms because they are educated and responsible in the handling of those weapons and the use of force?

You will never notice the people who don't act like idiots, just those who do.

And if I'm ascribing the worst possible mindset why are you the one carrying the gun?

As I understand this law there is no requirement for training or psychological testing. You want a gun? Take it.

To me it comes down to two facets of the American character.

It seems to me that of all the Western countries, it's Americans who fear each other the most. You rarely see the Canadians that terrified of the other people in our country. There is fear, but it never reaches the 'they're out to get me' level that it reaches in The States.

The same can be said of the Brits, French, Japanese, Germans, etc.

The other facet of the American character is its taste for violence. From my point of view violence is not considered the last resort, often it's considered the first one.

I ascribe all of this to your history. You were born in violence in a war. In many ways it was a civil war. Soon you had another, worse civil war. You expanded your borders with violence. Violence has become part of your nature.

This isn't something that can be changed with guns. The only thing guns can do is increase the body count.

 

[rgraham666]

From my studying of daito-ryu, I find myself disagreeing with you.

The purpose of a samurai was to die in the service of his lord. To be at war. To kill.

They were a brutal people for a brutal time, with brutal methods of fighting other people who used the same methods.

Don't make them more than they were.

Sigh. Some how, I knew you would miss the point.

 

[Evil Attorney]

And if I'm ascribing the worst possible mindset why are you the one carrying the gun?

Then that's sad, because you don't understand that part of being a citizen, instead of a subject, is part and parcel of the right to keep and bear arms.

As I understand this law there is no requirement for training or psychological testing. You want a gun? Take it.

And that whole FBI and state police background check counts for dick in your view? The training requirements to get the pistol permit don't count?

To me it comes down to two facets of the American character.

It seems to me that of all the Western countries, it's Americans who fear each other the most. You rarely see the Canadians that terrified of the other people in our country. There is fear, but it never reaches the 'they're out to get me' level that it reaches in The States.

The same can be said of the Brits, French, Japanese, Germans, etc.

All this talk about being in terror of other people on the street. Projecting your emotions onto other people, are we?

From my point of view violence is not considered the last resort, often it's considered the first one.

It is a last resort which is sometimes the only proper responce to a given situation.

But I have that option.

You, living in Canada, or in the countries you mentioned above, do not have that option.

The only thing guns can do is increase the body count.

Its not a problem of how many die, as opposed to "who dies".

I prefer criminals.

Your government would prefer that you were the one to die.

Its a cultural thing, and I don't expect you to understand.

 

[Pure]

?

What will count as evidence, for Floridians, that the new 'castle' law is working?

(It can't be fewer homeowners jailed for killing burglars, since that number is already zero or close it.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

?

What will count as evidence, for Floridians, that the new 'castle' law is working?

(It can't be fewer homeowners jailed for killing burglars, since that number is already zero or close it.)

Nobody will know how well the new law is working for a few years. If, after five years, we look at the statistics and see a big decrease in home-invasion robberies, residential burglaries and muggings, rapes by stranger and batteries, we can assume the law is working, especially if more criminals are being killed.

I am very inclined to agree with what Evil Attorney says. I feel that the more violent criminals are killed the better off the world is. Some governments, however, do not see it that way and regard criminals as "misunderstood, innocent victims of society" and believe that they have all the rights and victims have none. San Francisco and Berkeley in California are much like that and believe Massachusetts is also. This is an attitude sometimes held by liberals.

 

[rgraham666]

And of course being the wise and just people we are, we would never take away the rights of someone who didn't deserve it.

Not ever.

Much.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Elizabeth Borden took an axe
And gave her mother forty wacks;
But, oh, if she had got a gun,
Fall River’d be less forty-one.

 

[Boxlicker101]

And of course being the wise and just people we are, we would never take away the rights of someone who didn't deserve it.

Not ever.

Much.

We should always try to avoid taking away the rights of anybody, except under unusual circumstances, such as criminal activity. There are many persons, however, who are frequently referred to as "liberals" who are trying to take away rights of people to keep and bear arms, to defend oneself, of free association, and other rights. There are also persons, who are frequently referred to as "conservatives" who are trying to take away other rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression and others. Some examples can be seen on threads such as this one.

 

[rgraham666]

I don't differentiate between the two.

Both are a danger to our freedom.

I won't argue any further.

Maybe it's because I live in a nice quiet place where most of us don't hate each other, but I really don't feel the need to own a gun.

 

[SeaCat]

Evil A.,
I'll take this one part at a time. I'm going to use red not as a warning flag but to make it easier to differentiate between what you said and I say.

Then that's sad, because you don't understand that part of being a citizen, instead of a subject, is part and parcel of the right to keep and bear arms.
The right to keep and bear arms is a right only here in The United States. The Germans and other citizens of non monarchy countries would find it interesting to hear themselves called Subjects.


And that whole FBI and state police background check counts for dick in your view? The training requirements to get the pistol permit don't count?
Here in Florida the training to get a hanfgun permit takes roughly eight hours. (This includes classroom time as wel as the range time. There is no requirment to be able to hit your target.)



All this talk about being in terror of other people on the street. Projecting your emotions onto other people, are we?

I believe this could be considered an unwarranted personal attack. I know I would feel that way if it was directed on me. Let's try to use logic and information and not emotion or vitriol.

It is a last resort which is sometimes the only proper responce to a given situation.

But I have that option.

You, living in Canada, or in the countries you mentioned above, do not have that option.
You are correct that they do not have the option of reacting in this manner with a handgun, but they are allowed to own and use other types of weapons. Their violent crime with firearms rates are much lower than ours.



Its not a problem of how many die, as opposed to "who dies".

I prefer criminals.

Your government would prefer that you were the one to die.

Its a cultural thing, and I don't expect you to understand.

It is indeed a cultural thing, one which many American Citizens don't understand either.

Cat

p.s. To me I believe the quote in your sg line shows how your attitude differs from mine.

 

[Pure]

Hey box,

I feel that the more violent criminals are killed the better off the world is.

don't limit yerself. lotsa evil folks deserve to be killed. and the simplist way is to give out handguns to all the good folks--like yourself-- and pass a 'no-legal-hassles' law like Florida's, which will apply to all killings where there was the slightest provocation, rights intrusion, or perception of danger.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Hey box,

I feel that the more violent criminals are killed the better off the world is.

don't limit yerself. lotsa evil folks deserve to be killed. and the simplist way is to give out handguns to all the good folks--like yourself-- and pass a 'no-legal-hassles' law like Florida's, which will apply to all killings where there was the slightest provocation, rights intrusion, or perception of danger.

Hi, Pure.
I know you are just being sarcastic so I will say nothing except that I am referring to violent criminals, residential burglars, rapists, muggers, etc., not somebody who accidentally spills my coffee or cuts in front of me in a queue.

 

[Seattle Zack]

I am by no means a gun nut, and having carried while driving cab in the 80's (while I was in college, just a little snubnosed S&W .38 with a CCW permit) I think this Florida law is dangerous in its implications and the precedents it may set.

What began as a way to empower people attacked in their homes was expanded to include attacks in any place a person "has a right to be."

The bill (SB 436) originally was intended to put into law the "castle doctrine," a common law principle that allows a person to use deadly force if attacked in the home. At the NRA's urging, the bill removed a provision that says a person has a "duty to retreat" when attacked outside the home.

Under current law, a person acting in self-defense outside the home, workplace or car must use every reasonable means necessary to avoid danger before using deadly force. That, said NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer, is "absurd."

The new law would legalize retaliation. The bill says: "A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be." A person who uses force in such cases and is not violating another law could not be charged with a crime or sued.

The bill also says a person has "the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

So, with that law on the books, what Bernard Goetz did would have been legal. In essence, cruising the subways, antagonizing young black males until "he or she felt threatened" and then retaliating with deadly force.

I don't know. I have a .38 Super in my sock drawer, and I go to the range every other week. It's a beautiful gun, full-size 1911 with target adjustable sights that are dovetailed into the slide. I prefer the Winchester's 125-grain Silvertip ammunition, but I've experimented with many different loads.

But I would never presume to strap it on and go out at night, hoping against hope that someone would produce that situation that triggers that codecil "A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be." So I could shoot an unarmed man at a bus stop because he asked me for a dollar? Because my defense attorney could reasonably argue that I felt threatened at the time?

I'm a libertarian. I am pro-gun, and pro-drug. I believe in personal liberty, personal privacy, and personal accountability. You should be able to have as many guns as you want in your house, as you should be able to do whatever you want within your domicile without the police interfering. But once you start wandering the streets armed, that's when you interfere with other's personal liberties.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Evil A.,
I'll take this one part at a time. I'm going to use red not as a warning flag but to make it easier to differentiate between what you said and I say.
Okay, then I will write in blue to differentiate what I say.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Attorney
Then that's sad, because you don't understand that part of being a citizen, instead of a subject, is part and parcel of the right to keep and bear arms.
The right to keep and bear arms is a right only here in The United States. The Germans and other citizens of non monarchy countries would find it interesting to hear themselves called Subjects.
Except for the USA, most major nations either are or were, until quite recdently, monarchies, including Germany.


And that whole FBI and state police background check counts for dick in your view? The training requirements to get the pistol permit don't count?
Here in Florida the training to get a hanfgun permit takes roughly eight hours. (This includes classroom time as wel as the range time. There is no requirment to be able to hit your target.)
There is a lot more involved than just training. There is a background investigation to prove the gun buyer is not a felon, psycho, etc. The training is mostly in safety. Hopefully, the new gun owner will have sense enough to do some practicing at a firing range. Otherwise, the investment of time and effort seems rather pointless.


All this talk about being in terror of other people on the street. Projecting your emotions onto other people, are we?

I believe this could be considered an unwarranted personal attack. I know I would feel that way if it was directed on me. Let's try to use logic and information and not emotion or vitriol.

Except for paranoids, few people are actually "in terror of other people on the street". Most persons are aware that there are bad guys around and are prudent about where they go and when and with whom but "in terror" is too strong.

It is a last resort which is sometimes the only proper responce to a given situation.

But I have that option.

You, living in Canada, or in the countries you mentioned above, do not have that option.
You are correct that they do not have the option of reacting in this manner with a handgun, but they are allowed to own and use other types of weapons. Their violent crime with firearms rates are much lower than ours.
Rifles and shotguns are fine for home defense but are too bulky to carry on the street and cannot easily be concealed. That's what handguns are for, and that's what this thread is mostly about. The law is intended to apply to ordinary, law-abiding citizens and they are not going to be committing violent crimes; hopefully, they will be preventing violent crimes.



Its not a problem of how many die, as opposed to "who dies".

I prefer criminals.

Your government would prefer that you were the one to die.

Its a cultural thing, and I don't expect you to understand.


It is indeed a cultural thing, one which many American Citizens don't understand either.

Cat

p.s. To me I believe the quote in your sg line shows how your attitude differs from mine.
05-06-2005 04:19 PM

Zack, what Bernard Goetz did should have been legal. He was not cruising the subway looking for black males to antagonize. He was peacefully riding when a gang of muggers accosted him and he defended himself. This is what the jury decided although they did convict him of illegally possessing the weapon. Under the FL law, that would not have been illegal, providing the weapon were properly registered. You may be confusing the movie "Death Wish" with facts.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I ran across this URL. I'm not sure exactly what it means but I do see that it shows thousands of New Yorkers without criminal records being convicted of gun possession.
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/franklin_sullivan.html

 

[Boxlicker101]

bumping along

 

[SeaCat]

I ran across this URL. I'm not sure exactly what it means but I do see that it shows thousands of New Yorkers without criminal records being convicted of gun possession.
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/franklin_sullivan.html

Interesting, I'll have to print the whole thing out and re-read it. Thanks.

Cat

 

[Boxlicker101]

Interesting, I'll have to print the whole thing out and re-read it. Thanks.

Cat

As I recall, Pure challenged other posters on this thread to show one example of where law-abiding persons in New York were arrested for possession of a gun in their homes so I came up with this.