Florida- shoot first law

[SCpoloRicker]

Jaan you're a moran. Status has been updated.

[SlartyBartFast]

Trigger Happy - Weird Al Yankovic --- If you don't know the tune...

Gotta love Weird Al.

We live in the safest time in history. The chances of getting mugged, killed, catching a disease, are all at historic lows.

Why is it that while violent crime decreases by 30% every year, the reporting of violent crime increses 600%?

Everyone should read the transcript or watch the documentary "The Power of Nightmares".

The fear of hell let the church control society. The fear of crime and terrorism let's politicians control the public. The fear of being different drives consumers to buy...

Fear is the enemy.

[Lohman446]

Fear is the enemy.

What about the fear of fear?

The Florida right to carry law was designed to let law abiding citizens carry firearms without impossible and daunting hoops to jump through. As with the Michigan law although you may be disqualified the assumption (assuming you do not have a disqualifier) is the state will issue you one. This was to help those who did not feel safe in today's society take steps to better protect themselves.

This new law keeps you from running in fear should a situation start to esclate. Rather than running from a thug you may stand your ground, and if the situation escalates to where deadly force is needed the idea that you had a legal duty to retreat from a place you had a right to be because of a thug will not be there. One does not have to hide in fear from a menacing thug.

I like this new law, I think it protects the law abiding citizen from duties that I beleive should not have existed anyways - that being the duty to retreat and difuse a situation. If you threaten someone with severe bodily harm there may every well be consequences. I see no fault in the law, though I know it will be abused by defense attorneys.

/No disagreeing with you, just elaborating

[ultralight]

im not in the mood to piss off my neighbor and take a bullet

and that is a big part of the point.

all laws have two main purposes: to punish those who deserve punishment for their actions and to deter would be criminals.

as lohman has stated numersou times, this law wouldn't really change much other than the fact that now a potential victim can stand their ground rather than being attacked and possibly killed while attempting retreat.

and it's not belief it's reasonable belief which means that if the person's belief is found to be unreasonable then it becomes a murder.

that's another thing.

to kill is to end a life.
to murder is to unlawfully end a life

there is a huge difference there. many people use the term murder when talking about killing when they are trying to evoke an emotional response, rather than just presenting objective facts.
like all those PeTA ads.

[SlartyBartFast]

I will contend that the love of firearms and the manic need to have them handy is not justified by much more than fetish and unnecessary fear.

What about the fear of fear?

Meaning what exactly?

Seams to me the biggest backing for this legislation is from the fear of having your pride hurt.

law was designed to let law abiding citizens carry firearms without impossible and daunting hoops to jump through.

This was to help those who did not feel safe in today's society take steps to better protect themselves.

This new law keeps you from running in fear should a situation start to esclate.

[Jonneh]

Hay guys maybe we should ban guns

[Target Practice]

Hay guys maybe we should ban guns

Hey, just because you don't have them in your stupid commie country. One word for you Jonneh: Chavs. (I may be wrong about them, but this is coming from other Brits.)

Are your odds for a favorable outcome going to be better or worse if after being surprised you pull out a gun instead of just getting out of the car or handing over the cash?

You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking, is whether or not a would-be criminal would commit a crime with the knowledge that he is very likely to choose a "victim" who is carrying a weapon and knows how to use it.

And, to answer your other question, in most states you can only use your CCW in the event that you cannot get away, so your question becomes a moot point. If you're in a car, you just ram the bastard out of the way, or just take off (this is what the state says). If you're mugged, and can get away, you should do so. But, if you're in a situation where you can't get away, and your life (or someone elses) is in danger, you draw your weapon and stop the threat.

The key is training. Have you ever seen someone with a CCW shoot and use his training? These aren't just yahoos with guns. They know how to use them, and use them effectively.

[SlartyBartFast]

You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking, is whether or not a would-be criminal would commit a crime with the knowledge that he is very likely to choose a "victim" who is carrying a weapon and knows how to use it.

Study after study has conclusively shown there is no conclusive link between gun ownership and crime rate.

[SlartyBartFast]

And, to answer your other question, in most states you can only use your CCW in the event that you cannot get away, so your question becomes a moot point.

Been asleep and failed to read the thread?

This is about FLORIDIAN gun laws and the fact that all the boosters for it are happy you nolonger have to get away. .

[Target Practice]

Study after study has conclusively shown there is no conclusive link between gun ownership and crime rate.

I didn't say gun "ownership". Many, many people own guns. I'm talking about people who carry guns and are trained to use them. Look at places like Vermont, which have no regulations or prohibitions on carrying guns in public, and have very loose self defense laws. Compare their crime rates to those of, say, Washington DC, which is the complete opposite.

[Target Practice]

Been asleep and failed to read the thread?

This is about FLORIDIAN gun laws and the fact that all the boosters for it are happy you nolonger have to get away. .

Actually, I glanced over the parts where people didn't know what they were talking about.

Then, in that case, yes, it is a good law. Under the existing law in CA, for example, if I am in a car, blocked on all four sides with no way to escape, I cannot use my weapon to defend myself from a carjacker. Why? Because the court will say that I was in my vehicle, and was able to get away. No matter that I was blocked and unable to move. This law protects against that garbage.

[Recon by Fire]

I like this idea better: