shoot first?

[bopitaddict]

ughh... what is jeb bush doing?

for those that don't know, florida passed a law authorizing gun owners to shoot anyone in a public area who they believe threaten their safety.

supporters claim it'll stop criminals from attacking people while critics claim that people could pull out a gun for simple arguments.

how are they going to prove self-defense now? one of the elements was an opportunity to flee from the situation...

it's scary because i can see people taking advantage of the situation.

 

[cinnabar]

America needs laws like that, like it needs a hole in the head.

Which is what it''s going to get.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/30/2005 4:16:55 PM
Author:bopitaddict
while critics claim that people could pull out a gun for simple arguments.

Oh. So in other words, no change in how things are done right now. Gotcha.

Deb

 

[bopitaddict]

Date: 9/30/2005 5:59:15 PM
Author: AGBF

Oh. So in other words, no change in how things are done right now. Gotcha.

Deb

yah... that''s true...

but now they can shoot if they feel threatened...

 

[strmrdr]

Florida first the rest of the US next!!

dont listen to the hype read the law.

 

[strmrdr]

btw only a few states have laws saying you have to run away most states dont.

 

[strmrdr]

If you look into the law you still cant be the aggressor and claim self defense.
Your in a minor fender bender and you both get out of the car.
He/she/it comes at you with a tire iron shouting,
old law: if there was an opportunity to move safely away you are required to take it. The problem is that when someone is coming at you with a tire iron you may not notice an escape route because your attention is on the attacker. Usually the jury will let people off on the grounds of self defense under these conditions.
Under the new law it doesn''t get that far.

The law says that if someone is attacking you then you can defend yourself or another without having to retreat.

It does not say that you can attack someone and claim self defense.
Just the opposite if you attack someone it increases the chances that they might just shot you.

 

[movie zombie]

i believe it is one thing to feel ''threatened'' and another to be ''attacked''. unfortunately, not all people [with or without guns] know the difference.

peace, movie zombie

 

[bopitaddict]

but wouldn''t that just promote more confrontation? egg someone on until they lose it and then since they''re the aggressor, you''re justified if you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony?

i dunno... i can see both sides, if it worked properly, then it would curb crime... but i can also see people taking advantage of the situation and more "justifiable" homicides occurring as well.

 

[MissAva]

Maybe strm could help me with this one. I remember in HS (I think about 7 years ago) reading about how the cities with the least crime were the ones in Texas where everyone had a gun. Everyone knew everyone else was armed and so they kept their tempers and opted not to break the law there....does anyone else ecall anything about this?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/5/2005 3:32:03 PM
Author: Matatora
Maybe strm could help me with this one. I remember in HS (I think about 7 years ago) reading about how the cities with the least crime were the ones in Texas where everyone had a gun. Everyone knew everyone else was armed and so they kept their tempers and opted not to break the law there....does anyone else ecall anything about this?

There have been serveral such studies.
crime against residents went down a ton in Florida after ccw was passed and went up against tourists because there wasnt much chance they would be armed.
Now most out of state ccw''s make a person legal in Florida and several crooks have learned that the hard way.
More than a few more have been put down by leo''s driving rental cars in sting operations.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/4/2005 3:09:22 PM
Author: bopitaddict
but wouldn''t that just promote more confrontation? egg someone on until they lose it and then since they''re the aggressor, you''re justified if you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony?

Someone doing that would still go down for on variant of murder or another under both the old and the new law.
The first thing that is taught to anyone that is going to be carrying a gun other than cops and some times it goes for them too.. that is that you can not make the situation worse then claim self defense.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 10/5/2005 3:32:03 PM
Author: Matatora
Maybe strm could help me with this one. I remember in HS (I think about 7 years ago) reading about how the cities with the least crime were the ones in Texas where everyone had a gun. Everyone knew everyone else was armed and so they kept their tempers and opted not to break the law there....does anyone else ecall anything about this?

Ex law

bring back the wild wild west. shoot first,ask questions later.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/6/2005 2:41:57 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/5/2005 3:32:03 PM

Author: Matatora

Maybe strm could help me with this one. I remember in HS (I think about 7 years ago) reading about how the cities with the least crime were the ones in Texas where everyone had a gun. Everyone knew everyone else was armed and so they kept their tempers and opted not to break the law there....does anyone else ecall anything about this?

Ex law

bring back the wild wild west. shoot first,ask questions later.

doesnt happen.


"The GOOD News: Since passing the ordinance* in March 1982, the citizens of Kennesaw, GA, have seen ZERO crimes committed with guns, ZERO children shot accidentally, and their overall crime stats have dropped to the single digits. Meanwhile, their population has increased 325% and is still rising. People buy property and open businesses in Kennesaw because the town has something substantial to offer. No money was spent implementing this ordinance, yet the town is now one of the safest in America - because every household (unless they opt-out) must be armed - and potential criminals know it! It is voluntary. There is NO registration, NO checks on participating households, and ANYONE CAN OPT-OUT WITHOUT PENALTY. The only thing the ordinance does is send a message to the bad guys saying that Criminal Behavior Is Not Tolerated Here - Citizens Are Armed And Ready To Protect Themselves, Their Families, And Their Homes. And it works.

*The Kennesaw Gun Ordinance:
Code of Ordinances & Gun Law. Sec. 34-1. Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the City (county), and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city (county) and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the City (county) limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability, which would prohibit them from using such a firearm.
Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony."


http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/mseaman_20050822.html

 

[strmrdr]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/27/223955.shtml

Guns are just tools if they are used for good or evil is up too the person holding it.
The clear fact is that when the good guys have guns the bad ones tend to go elsewhere.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/6/2005 7:26:41 AM
Author: strmrdr
The clear fact is that when the good guys have guns the bad ones tend to go elsewhere.

May I play devil's advocate for a moment?


If this reasoning holds true, how do you account for the frequent fights among bands in which everyone is armed? Among gang members over drugs and turf? Among members of the Mafia?


Second, how do you account for fights that last for centuries among groups in which everyone with a gun thinks he is the good guy?

Croats versus Serbs
English versus Irish


To me the notion that that, "good guys" having guns will keep away, "bad guys" is false logic. It is more likely that AT BEST the "armed guys" will keep away, "the unarmed guys". In other words, might makes right. The other possibility is that, "good guys" having guns will create Serbias, northern Irelands, Mafia wars, drug wars in which bystanders are shot, etcetera.

How often does one read of a child hit by a "stray" bullet in a shootout over drugs? No one can argue that without guns there cannot be "stray bullets".

Deb

 

[strmrdr]

um no time but since when is anyone involved in the drug trade a good guy? or the mob for that matter.
To be honest when i hear of a drug pusher getting killed my thought is thats a good start hope some more get it.

If it wernt for the fact innocent people sometimes get caught by stray bullets id say let the gang bangers at it then shot the ones that are left standing.

 

[movie zombie]

this is going to surprise many who are aware of my social and economic politics but i believe in the right to bear arms. but i believe in responsible bearing of arms. most people who own guns are responsible. i do not call gang members and/or mafia types most people nor are they responsible. i don''t know if most people are aware of it or not but more children die in swimming pools each year than they do from gun shots. and i''m sure more people die from speediing in cars than from gun shots. perhaps ford et al. should be prosecuted for endangering lives because they manufacture automobiles that go faster than the speed limit.....that would be in keeping, i think, with attempts to hold gun manufacturers responsible for deaths caused by gun shots.

btw, re "If it wernt for the fact innocent people sometimes get caught by stray bullets id say let the gang bangers at it then shot the ones that are left standing." while i respect the author''s right to his own opinion, i personally find it irresponsible in a discussion of guns. it certainly gives the impression of being irresponsible as a gun owner and is certainly not a view point responsible gun owners i know would agree with.

peace, movie zombie, a gun owner since the age of 8

 

[Dancing Fire]

i agree with storm on this subject.

Deb
if we outlaw guns.....do you think all the BAD GUYS will turn their guns in? of course NOT.i always believe people kill, not guns.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/6/2005 9:58:44 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
i always believe people kill, not guns.

Well...just to keep the discussion going (this isn''t an issue about which I am passionate), by that token, the same is true about nuclear weapons. Nonetheless we still keep trying to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

Deborah

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 10/6/2005 10:14:39 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 10/6/2005 9:58:44 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
i always believe people kill, not guns.

Well...just to keep the discussion going (this isn''t an issue about which I am passionate), by that token, the same is true about nuclear weapons. Nonetheless we still keep trying to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

Deborah

yes, deb, as well we should....it doesn''t take but a few nuclear weapons to ''do the job'' and amassing the quantities that we and others have only makes the weapon makers richer, the taxpayers poorer, and the world more unsafe.

there are laws in place in most states that ban certain types of weapons....the end result of which is a reduced stock pile of guns in private hands. however, the nations of the world can''t do the same.

a gun may take a life but nuclear weapons could destroy life as we know it on this planet.

peace, movie zombie

 

[MINE!!]

MZ.. I think we have found something else to agree on (besides Garnets

)

I have been on the fence about the gun issue for a while. I grew up with a gun in my hand.. although I do not have one in my house. I discourage my children from getting involved in any way with guns, yet I tell them about the benefits of knowing how to handle a gun and understanding that it is not guns that kill people, it is people that kill people.

I have grown up with hunters and gun enthusists.. and to honest they are some of the most responsible people when it comes to owning and shooting guns. It is NOT the average responsible citizen that one has to worry about. It is the person that intents to use a gun for malicious means. If you take away the guns from the citizens.. the only people that will have the guns are the criminals... that would be a dangerous situation. For everyone.

In this thread, I said that I did not know have a gun in my house. My DH does not beleive that we should have a gun in the house. FOr safety reasons, I feel a little guilty even admitting that we do NOT have one. I grew up with gund in my house and I ALWAYS felt safe... and I am sure that I would now as well.

MY children had their first "target and care'' lesson this summer. They were able to see and feel the weight of a gun and were told about the proper care of a gun. I then shot a watermelon for them. Afterwords they were able to see the ultimate destruction that a gun can cause... I think they quickly got the point as to what a gun would do to another human being.( after inspecting the destroyed melon) They learned a respect and understanding of a firearm. BUt I could Never tell them that it is BAD to own a gun and to protect themselves when they get older... and in a responsible situation. Alhtough they saw what a rifle could do to the watermelon.. they also understood what guns in the hands of a criminal could do to them or someone they love.

 

[movie zombie]

Mine, you and i may have been raised in a similar way re guns...albeit on opposite coasts. also, you are married to canadian, i am married to an australian. their ''culture'' is brit based in many ways and, therefore, they would appear to have similar views.

the break through for my husband has been our move to our new and more isolated location here in the santa cruz mountains. additionally, i hike alone in country that has mountain lions and wild pigs. he now believes i should increase my ''fire power''....which i intend to do.

i think the training you are providing your children is appropriate and responsible. too many kids see and think that TV and movies accurately depict guns and gunshot wounds...that one just gets up and walks away and/or just gets up and shows up in the next movie. those of us that grew up in families with a hunter know how serious guns are and how dangerous they can be. we''ve been taught a respect for them and our fellow human beings.

btw, i do have a problem with some hunters: the so-called trophy hunter, the hunter that has to use a scope and shoot from an airplane, the hunter that kills only and leaves the ''meat'' to rot, etc.

and while i''m on this thought wave: if more people knew where their food came from and how it ended up in those nice little packages in the meat section of the market, there would be more vegetarians. hunting is a lot less cruel than what goes on in those processing plants.

peace, movie zombie still dreaming orange garnets!

 

[partgypsy]

myself, I''m more comfortable with the law in Chicago, no guns allowed in city limits. Noone except police officers are allowed to have guns. They have a fun thing they do on New Years, where units go around to where they hear gunshots from celebrating revelers and take away the guns. They do a good job. That is just one reason why more people are moving back to the city and property values are going up. Law enforcement and gun control can go hand in hand. I am not going to do surgery on myself, I''m going to leave law enforcment to the professionals.

I have to admit for those pro gun people, it does seem like it has to be all or nothing. I am against having a gun in the household (we have a toddler) but there have been discussions about it; since so many people have guns you almost feel like you need one to be on a level playing field. However I think the drawbacks/risks outweigh the potential benefit.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 10/13/2005 12:45:39 PM
Author: part gypsy
myself, I''m more comfortable with the law in Chicago, no guns allowed in city limits. Noone except police officers are allowed to have guns. They have a fun thing they do on New Years, where units go around to where they hear gunshots from celebrating revelers and take away the guns. They do a good job. That is just one reason why more people are moving back to the city and property values are going up. Law enforcement and gun control can go hand in hand. I am not going to do surgery on myself, I''m going to leave law enforcment to the professionals.

I have to admit for those pro gun people, it does seem like it has to be all or nothing. I am against having a gun in the household (we have a toddler) but there have been discussions about it; since so many people have guns you almost feel like you need one to be on a level playing field. However I think the drawbacks/risks outweigh the potential benefit.

don''t forget the criminals too.you think they turn in their guns to the police department?...LOL

 

[rubydick]

I always feel safer when I''m packing some heat. Which is why I encourage Iran, North Korea and all other nations to get hold of nuclear weapons. After all, if only the Bush Crime Family has access to this stuff, how safe can any of us be?

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 10/13/2005 10:28:58 PM
Author: Richard Hughes
I always feel safer when I''m packing some heat. Which is why I encourage Iran, North Korea and all other nations to get hold of nuclear weapons. After all, if only the Bush Crime Family has access to this stuff, how safe can any of us be?

very true, richard.

peace, movie zombie