FYI: New Florida laws

[MKCustodial]

Well, I'm gonna bow out of this one, folks. It's just too weird, and since I'm not American, maybe it's something in your culture or something.

I just thought it was funny to see this now, since we're about to hold a big national vote down here to decide whether or not people should be allowed to have guns. Those who are against the disarmament say the same thing that was said in that article, that people should have the right to protect their homes and families. Personally, I think violence attracts violence. I know that if the disarmament thing happens, the criminals and drug lords and what nots won't be affected, since they don't buy guns legally, but to me this thing affects the nuts who pull out their guns as soon as a fight starts, and usually it's a fight they provoked themselves.

I guess in this day and age, with everything that's happening world-wide and the way it's so difficult now to tell the white hats form the black hats, receiving this kind of OK from your government sounds pretty dangerous for you, Americans, and for us tourists in your country.

 

[Shaman]

Personally I'm against extreme gun control...I do think there are weapons that shouldn't be sold...but I don't think the gov should take a person's right to own a gun.

That being said...personally I don't own a gun. I don't hunt. I don't care for violence (except in extreme instances). But that's just my personal belief.









Christy what was it we were talking about yesterday...something about being "tolerant"...:lookaroun :lol:

 

[wannab@dis]

I know that if the disarmament thing happens, the criminals and drug lords and what nots won't be affected, since they don't buy guns legally, but to me this thing affects the nuts who pull out their guns as soon as a fight starts, and usually it's a fight they provoked themselves.

Keep in mind that the "nuts" probably won't be carrying a gun legally and therefore, the law will do nothing to protect them. From what I can tell, this law will only protect someone that has a carry permit and legally defends themselves. As for your WDW analogy earlier, guns are not permitted in the parks, so therefore, this law would not apply.

The sad thing in our country is that the criminal seems to have more rights than the victims. Many people have been sued for defending themselves legally, but yet they had to fight a civil lawsuit and sometimes lost. It appears after more reading that this law was intended to keep that from happening.

FYI: I'm also against the sell and ownership of "assault" weapons. Personal protection does not require an AK-47. I do own a couple of hunting rifles and shotguns (haven't been used in a while) and a handgun that is used for target practice. I don't have a carry permit and I don't carry a gun.

 

[TAC]

As a proud card carrying member of the NRA, I have to disagree with you. Please correct me if I am wrong, but in the UK, the government passed a law that makes it illegal for private citizens to own firearms. Everyone has had to turn them in. What are the results? Violent crime in the UK has risen to all time highs.

In the USA, I believe there are two states that have concealed carry laws. IE: if you pass a background check, you are allowed to carry a concealed handgun. Those two states are Texas and Florida. In both of those states, after the concealed carry law was passed, violent crime decreased.

In the USA, every time a gun control law has been passed, violent crime has increased.

There are 'three' sides to the issue. Those that feel they want to ban all guns. Those that think that it's ok to be able to purchase any kind of weapon that is sold, and those that believe that a reasonable law that allows weapons to be owned and even carried by responsible citizens that have passed background checks.

Sure, there will be the 'oulaws' that have passed a background check, and get ed off at someone at a traffic light and kills him/her. But, how many innocent citizens (in the USA) are killed each year because of criminals that have illegal hand guns that were not purchased with a background check? Of those innocent citizens, how many might have been able to defend themselves, had they been able to legally carry a concealed weapon? Or how many of those innocent citizens might not have been victims because a criminal thought that that citizen might be carrying a weapon and be able to defend themselves ?

I just thought it was funny to see this now, since we're about to hold a big national vote down here to decide whether or not people should be allowed to have guns. Those who are against the disarmament say the same thing that was said in that article, that people should have the right to protect their homes and families. Personally, I think violence attracts violence. I know that if the disarmament thing happens, the criminals and drug lords and what nots won't be affected, since they don't buy guns legally, but to me this thing affects the nuts who pull out their guns as soon as a fight starts, and usually it's a fight they provoked themselves.

I guess in this day and age, with everything that's happening world-wide and the way it's so difficult now to tell the white hats form the black hats, receiving this kind of OK from your government sounds pretty dangerous for you, Americans, and for us tourists in your country.

 

[wannab@dis]

In the USA, I believe there are two states that have concealed carry laws. IE: if you pass a background check, you are allowed to carry a concealed handgun. Those two states are Texas and Florida. In both of those states, after the concealed carry law was passed, violent crime decreased.

TN has a conceal carry law and most of our surrounding states have an agreement that allows TN residents with a carry permit to carry in those states. Those states have similar laws if I'm not mistaken. You are correct that the carry permits have had a positive effect on violent crimes.

When I bought my handgun (about 5 years ago) I had two background checks to pass before I could buy it. State and Federal.

 

[ogryn]

As a proud card carrying member of the NRA, I have to disagree with you. Please correct me if I am wrong, but in the UK, the government passed a law that makes it illegal for private citizens to own firearms. Everyone has had to turn them in. What are the results? Violent crime in the UK has risen to all time highs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3112818.stm

I'm not sure if it collaborates or dispells your statement, but it's the best I could find :lol:

 

[ogryn]

Also an article on the thread subject: Florida to expand law on gun use

 

[Shaman]

FYI: I'm also against the sell and ownership of "assault" weapons. Personal protection does not require an AK-47.

I agree!

 

[MouseMadness]

Personally I'm against extreme gun control...I do think there are weapons that shouldn't be sold...but I don't think the gov should take a person's right to own a gun.

That being said...personally I don't own a gun. I don't hunt. I don't care for violence (except in extreme instances). But that's just my personal belief.









Christy what was it we were talking about yesterday...something about being "tolerant"...:lookaroun :lol:

:lol: Yes... :lookaroun

For the record, we do own a gun. :lookaroun Are you kidding? In this city, me and the girls... husband working sometimes crazy schedules. Damn right I have a gun. :lol: (I'm not stupid though... I don't load it and then store it where Leah's going to find it and play cowgirl. :lol: :lookaroun ) I grew up around them, my dad is/was an avid hunter, and we learned to "respect" what a gun can do (for lack of a better term?)

I'd have to read more of the law to fully understand, but I do think the initial post left it a bit simplistic. (As wannab said) I also think it's a thing we were all doing anyway? Yes, if I, or my family, feel threatened, of course I'm going to defend myself.

 

[Shaman]

:lol: Yes... :lookaroun

For the record, we do own a gun. :lookaroun Are you kidding? In this city, me and the girls... husband working sometimes crazy schedules. Damn right I have a gun. :lol: (I'm not stupid though... I don't load it and then store it where Leah's going to find it and play cowgirl. :lol: :lookaroun )

LMAO!! :lol:

I also think it's a thing we were all doing anyway? Yes, if I, or my family, feel threatened, of course I'm going to defend myself.

Exactly.

 

[ogryn]

Why not just kick them in the Meat & Two Veg and be done with it? :lookaroun

 

[barnum42]

As a proud card carrying member of the NRA, I have to disagree with you. Please correct me if I am wrong, but in the UK, the government passed a law that makes it illegal for private citizens to own firearms. Everyone has had to turn them in. What are the results? Violent crime in the UK has risen to all time highs.

Not being a gun owner I can't tell you the details, but I have worked with people that shoot for sport and for culling of pests in the countryside. When I visit my folks in the countryside I often hear guns, be they hunting or clay pigeon shooting. I guess you have to prove that you have a use or need for the gun, rather than owning one "just because".

Violent Crime has increased in the UK, but it's more a knife culture than a gun culture. Violent crime has also increased due to the binge drinking culture that has sadly spread throughout society. Many a city centre is a no go area at the weekend because of the gangs of drunken yob fighting, either with bare fists or broken glass or knives.

The government has recently made a small change to the law that says it now now OK to use "reasonable force" to protect yourself. But "reasonable force" is a very grey definition.

We have the problem mentioned elsewhere in this thread where victims have less legal rights than the criminals. There was the big case where an old boy shot two intruders, killing one. He had been broken into many times before and eventually had to resort to violence. One of the intruders died, the other was wounded. The old boy went to jail and the wounded criminal tried to sue him. The old boy is now out of jail and the BBC paid the wounded criminal several thousand pounds to appear in a documentary about the case. The criminal gets away with his crime and profits from it.

 

[ogryn]

Not being a gun owner I can't tell you the details, but I have worked with people that shoot for sport and for culling of pests in the countryside. When I visit my folks in the countryside I often hear guns, be they hunting or clay pigeon shooting. I guess you have to prove that you have a use or need for the gun, rather than owning one "just because".

It was just a ban on handguns wasn't it? 2003-ish?

 

[barnum42]

It was just a ban on handguns wasn't it? 2003-ish?

Could have been. Though I guess they found a way around for sports hand guns.

 

[MKCustodial]

Sure, there will be the 'oulaws' that have passed a background check, and get ed off at someone at a traffic light and kills him/her. But, how many innocent citizens (in the USA) are killed each year because of criminals that have illegal hand guns that were not purchased with a background check? Of those innocent citizens, how many might have been able to defend themselves, had they been able to legally carry a concealed weapon? Or how many of those innocent citizens might not have been victims because a criminal thought that that citizen might be carrying a weapon and be able to defend themselves ?

Just coming back to answer your questions, since you directed them at me. I have no idea about the US reality (the reason why I backed out of the thread), but I can tell you how it happens down here. There's no background check. If there is, i doubt it it's done right. And even if it's done right, there are ways to get a gun other than through "legal means".

How many innocent citizens are killed each year because of criminals that have illegal hand guns that were not purchased with a background check? Hundreds.

Of those innocent citizens, how many might have been able to defend themselves, had they been able to legally carry a concealed weapon? Some. Theoretically, that's the police's job. Unfortunately, ours is understaffed, underequipped and underpaid. Many police officers won't pursue car thieves up a slum because it's not worth the aggravation to them. That's the sorry state Rio is in right now. So that alone would be argument enough for people to defend themselves, I suppose. I don't agree, since as I stated, I believe violence atracts more violence, and this is the kind of thing that can get out of control fast. You start defending yourself against the real threat and pretty soon you'll be seeing threats in every corner. This is specially true to a city where every traffic light has groups of people of all ages, from kids to adults, asking for money, selling candy, offering to wipe your windshield, etc.

Or how many of those innocent citizens might not have been victims because a criminal thought that that citizen might be carrying a weapon and be able to defend themselves? Not many, since the tragedies already happen. We hear about it almost every week, how someone was waiting for the light to turn green, a guy approached the car with a gun, told the person to get out and, when the driver turned to unbuckle the seatbelt, the guy figured the driver would react and just fired. Not to mention shooting reactions to traffic arguments, petty thieves in buses... And all those "stray bullets" victims that we often read about in the paper.

As I said, it's probably a cultural thing. Guns are connected to a lot of places in the US, from hunting to crime to war. A lot of American kids probably learned to shoot a rifle much sooner than I learned to drive. And we have different realities as well. Of course, the place is not as bad as it sounds, although it's hard to believe it with those kind of examples I just pointed out... In any event, what I see as wrong may be right to the majority of your population or all those in charge wouldn't be there, so who am I to say anything about it?

 

[pisco]

As a proud card carrying member of the NRA, I have to disagree with you. Please correct me if I am wrong, but in the UK, the government passed a law that makes it illegal for private citizens to own firearms. Everyone has had to turn them in. What are the results? Violent crime in the UK has risen to all time highs.

In the USA, I believe there are two states that have concealed carry laws. IE: if you pass a background check, you are allowed to carry a concealed handgun. Those two states are Texas and Florida. In both of those states, after the concealed carry law was passed, violent crime decreased.

In the USA, every time a gun control law has been passed, violent crime has increased.

There are 'three' sides to the issue. Those that feel they want to ban all guns. Those that think that it's ok to be able to purchase any kind of weapon that is sold, and those that believe that a reasonable law that allows weapons to be owned and even carried by responsible citizens that have passed background checks.

Sure, there will be the 'oulaws' that have passed a background check, and get ed off at someone at a traffic light and kills him/her. But, how many innocent citizens (in the USA) are killed each year because of criminals that have illegal hand guns that were not purchased with a background check? Of those innocent citizens, how many might have been able to defend themselves, had they been able to legally carry a concealed weapon? Or how many of those innocent citizens might not have been victims because a criminal thought that that citizen might be carrying a weapon and be able to defend themselves ?

I live in a state that allows concealed carry (Colorado) and that was one of the first to pass a so called "Make My Day Law". Our Make My Day law allows you to shoot anybody on your property who is threatening you, your family or your property. You can even shoot them in the back as they are fleeing from your property and be safe from any type of prosecution.

The bottom line reality of having this law? It is almost never applied. We had a few cases that fell under it in the first year or so (mostly inter family disputes) and it has been almost non-existent since then. I suspect the same will be true of this new law in Florida. Most prosecution of self defense cases is very much based on common sense and prosecutorial discretion. I am betting that after a bunch of shouting from both side and one or two early cases of the law being applied the controversy will die down and the law will rarely need to be applied.

TAC, you throw out a lot of bold statements about the relationship between gun control laws and crime rate without any links or supporting evidence. Can you support these arguments? I am not a huge proponent of wide ranging gun control laws. I am currently shopping for a handgun for my wife and we are going to try to get her a concealed carry permit. So I am not anti-gun at all. That being said, I also understand the the intent of the Second Amendment was that private citizens should be allowed to arm themselves to protect themselves against tyrannical government. Not so that we could function as vigilantes.

My feeling is that we should leave the jobs of public safety and law enforcement in the hands of police officers how are highly trained to handle such situations. Use of force of any kind should be an absolute last resort for civilians. Giving them the right to "stand their ground" against people who "make the nervous" seems like an invitation to disaster to me. The average person (myself included) does not posses the training nor the experience to make rational decisions about when or when not to use deadly force. Certainly if you are being threatened in your own home then it makes perfect sense to defend yourself, your family and your property. But if someone is giving you funny looks out on the street where you have the opportunity to just walk away from the situation, leaving is always the best option.

Lastly, I think that if untrained and "nervous or frightened" individual starts shooting in a public place they are more likely to accidentally hurt an innocent bystander than to effectively protect themselves against an assailant. Effectively and accurately using a handgun under a high stress situation is a skill very few people have. Even police officers are likely to miss with a number of their shots in situations like that. Taking a few gun safety classes to get a concealed carry permit is not going to give you the necessary experience and decision making skills to handle these situations.

Look at it this way, we all have to go through a process of testing to receive a license to drive a car and look at how horrible drivers there are on the road. Why would this concealed carry process be any more effective?

 

[The Mom]

I HAVE read the law, as I had to vote on it. It is a "meet deadly force with deadly force" law, which only clarifies what is considered self defense. In the past, if someone were breaking into my house, or stealing my occupied car, or entering my place of business wearing a mask, I would only be allowed (legally) to shoot him if he were blocking my escape, or directly threatening me or my family. (His breaking in , etc was not considered a deadly threat in and of itself.) Now I can shoot him as soon as it becomes apparent that he is entering my home/car/business illegally or with illegal intent.

This doesn't mean that I can legally shoot the homeless guy who is panhandling on the sidewalk, or the guy who makes sexual comments as I walk by, or the person who starts cussing me out in traffic, UNLESS he starts to grab me, comes at me with a weapon, etc.

 

[SpongeScott]

I HAVE read the law, as I had to vote on it. It is a "meet deadly force with deadly force" law, which only clarifies what is considered self defense. In the past, if someone were breaking into my house, or stealing my occupied car, or entering my place of business wearing a mask, I would only be allowed (legally) to shoot him if he were blocking my escape, or directly threatening me or my family. (His breaking in , etc was not considered a deadly threat in and of itself.) Now I can shoot him as soon as it becomes apparent that he is entering my home/car/business illegally or with illegal intent.

This doesn't mean that I can legally shoot the homeless guy who is panhandling on the sidewalk, or the guy who makes sexual comments as I walk by, or the person who starts cussing me out in traffic, UNLESS he starts to grab me, comes at me with a weapon, etc.

does it allow me to shoot people who make stupid posts on wdwmagic? :lookaroun

(not referring to your post, Marcia...:kiss: :wave: )

 

[darthdarrel]

I for one will never have a gun in my house, but I will not say that you can't have a gun. Our constitution gives us the "RIGHT" to bear arms. Yes I do feel there should be background checks and I think that most states do have them, I know Ohio performs background checks and Ohio also has a concealed weapons law now.I do ,however, want to get a stun gun. :lookaroun

 

[DMC-12]

Walking by a 'Jerry Springer' studio audience, lined up around NBC Tower, always makes me nervous & frightened. :lookaroun

I guess I should start packin heat. :lol: :lookaroun