New Florida Gun Law. "Shoot First"

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

What sickens me is the anti-gun people are trying to destroy the Florida tourism industry to help further their agenda, and using false and misleading information to do it.

Bingo! They couldn't stop Florida's concealed carry law from passing many years ago, and now they couldn't stop this self-defense law from passing. So all Brady's got left is to go public with lies to try and hurt Florida's tourism industry to punish the state for daring to go against them. Pretty darned disgusting.

News quote:

"Tourism officials in Florida are furious at the move. Bud Nocera, the executive director of Visit Florida, said: 'It is sad that such an organisation would hold the 900,000 men and women who work in the Florida tourism industry, and whose lives depend on it, hostage to their political agenda.'"

They also predicted mayhem a year ago when the so-called assault weapon ban expired. So what has happened since? Crime statistics are now at a 30-year low!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I will not go to Florida on my next vacations! There are much nicer places in the US, such as Twin Falls or MOAB...

How do you know that Idaho and Utah don't already have such laws. Those are very lax states for anti-gun laws...

[Channman 2]

>Now, all you can do is pray that someone heard the ruckus and called 911 and the police get there in time ....to take pictures of you body and that of your family.

Place you and the family in plastic bags to be paraded out infront of your neighbors and the media.

Its a great law, shoot the bastards two to the chest and one to the head. If your not that good of a shot four to the chest.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Quote

But then what's the difference (from the legal side) between Florida and other states?

From what I understand:

1. Some states: You can defend yourself against an imminent threat to your life using a gun in both your home and in public. (You don't have to try to get away from your attacker)

2. Some states: You cannot defend yourself against and imminent threat to your life with a gun without first trying to escape. (In both home and public)

3. Some other states (Florida before the new law): You can defend yourself against the threat to your life using a gun without trying to escape in your own home, but not in public.

The laws vary from state to state

Bingo! This is the best answer I've seen yet. I would just like to add:

To determine if you live in a "duty to retreat" state, just read through your states self-defense code. If there is a duty to retreat, it will be spelled out. If you don't find any such section, you live in a "stand your ground" state.

My state (CO) is the latter. Funny how I haven't seen daily gun battles in the street.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Botellines 0]

I understand the change diferently. What does it mean "reasonable believe"?
If i offer my finger to a reckless driver and he stop to look for a confrontation, can i reasonable believe that my life is in danger? what about if he search in the car for something, how do i know wether he is going to shoot me, or just throw something at me.
There is people truly paranoid out there who may think that thier life is in danger for the most stupid reasons. That you are required by law to first avoid confrontation is to me a very good thing. If you try to avoid confrontation and you cannot, chances are that the other person does indeed try to harm you.

I certainly as a tourist would apreciate to know that kind of law before i travel to Florida. Same thing as it is handy to know that using drugs in Turkey will cost me many years of prison or even life.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I understand the change diferently. What does it mean "reasonable believe"?

Are they trying to kill you?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

There is people truly paranoid out there who may think that thier life is in danger for the most stupid reasons.

They haven't been restraining themselves because of some previous law, and now that the law has changed they're all of a sudden gonna go off on a rampage at the first inclination. Those kind of people were already acting on their impulses regardless of the law. The law doesn't stop idiots from doing stupid things.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

There is people truly paranoid out there who may think that thier life is in danger for the most stupid reasons.

They haven't been restraining themselves because of some previous law, and now that the law has changed they're all of a sudden gonna go off on a rampage at the first inclination. Those kind of people were already acting on their impulses regardless of the law. The law doesn't stop idiots from doing stupid things.

So why are laws to be installed?
If it's not stopping anyone from anything, it's wasted time, isn't it? Wasted tax money to keep old man paid?

Which law will stop any idiot then?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

So why are laws to be installed?
If it's not stopping anyone from anything, it's wasted time, isn't it? Wasted tax money to keep old man paid?

Actually the new law is to reduce civil liability. People who are prepaired to defend themselves (in any manner, not just with a firearm) will defend themselves if and when it is needed. The problem is, even if its a clean defense case and no criminal charges will be brought against the person who defended themselves from mortal danger, there is nearly always a civil case. That comes about from the agressor or the now deceased agressor's family. With civil cases its not a right or wrong case, think of it like a set of scales, which way do they tip, even just a little bit. That's how OJ walked on the criminal charges but lost the civil suit (as an example to explain roughly and quickly how civil law tends to work).

Thus, this new law doesn't really change honest law abiding person's ability to defend themselves, it helps keep them from loosing civil cases when the agressor who tried to kill the person brings a civil case against them.

Make sense? If you have doubts, spend some time reading case law, or better yet, read up on criminal law, look at criminal case law and then look at cases that have criminal cases followed by civil cases. See how the outcomes vary and why. You'll find a unique education that will help you better understand the laws you're trying to incorrectly argue.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I understand the change diferently. What does it mean "reasonable believe"?
If i offer my finger to a reckless driver and he stop to look for a confrontation, can i reasonable believe that my life is in danger? what about if he search in the car for something, how do i know wether he is going to shoot me, or just throw something at me.
There is people truly paranoid out there who may think that thier life is in danger for the most stupid reasons. That you are required by law to first avoid confrontation is to me a very good thing. If you try to avoid confrontation and you cannot, chances are that the other person does indeed try to harm you.

I certainly as a tourist would apreciate to know that kind of law before i travel to Florida. Same thing as it is handy to know that using drugs in Turkey will cost me many years of prison or even life.

"An armed society is a polite society" - Robert Heinlein

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Botellines 0]

Quote

"An armed society is a polite society" - Robert Heinlein

Let´s suppose i agree, would you be happy with giving every tourist a gun upon arrival so they can be part of the polite society? What about letting them bring their guns?

Well, if not at least they should be warned of the local laws that might affect them, don´t you think?

[mr2mk1g 10]

This thread is about self defence law. The law in question is materially the same in the UK as it is in Florida. Are you afraid to visit the UK because of that?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Let´s suppose i agree, would you be happy with giving every tourist a gun upon arrival so they can be part of the polite society? What about letting them bring their guns?

It's the same deterrence that (to a point) works against common crime. The criminals don't know who's armed, so the overall amount of muggings / strong-arm robberies goes down.

Quote

Well, if not at least they should be warned of the local laws that might affect them, don´t you think?

The possibility of being harmed if you're acting like an ass is a natural law - the solution is not to act like an ass.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...Actually the new law is to reduce civil liability.

Thanks, Dave. You always have a way of getting to the bottom of things.

It's very nice to know that the asshole or his surviving family can't go after my wallet legally after the sucker tried to rob it illegally.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

...Actually the new law is to reduce civil liability.

Thanks, Dave. You always have a way of getting to the bottom of things.

I very nice to know that the asshole or his surviving family can't go after my wallet legally after the sucker tried to rob it illegally.

I don't believe that it will end up being a defense against prosecution in a civil case, but it certainly wouldn't hurt things, methinks.

I'll have to look up the full text of the bill and see if it mentions anything about it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...being a defense against prosecution in a civil case, but it certainly wouldn't hurt things, methinks.

I thinks that this is what's needed.

IMO, there's just something inherently wrong about being sued by a perp or his family when his actions caused the whole event.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

...being a defense against prosecution in a civil case, but it certainly wouldn't hurt things, methinks.

I thinks that this is what's needed.

IMO, there's just something inherently wrong about being sued by a perp or his family when his actions caused the whole event.

I'm in 100% agreement with you, there!!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Jib 0]

Florida laws:

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/titl0776.htm

In case you want to read about the changes (I think this was the final) ...

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/castledoctrinebill.pdf

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So why are laws to be installed? If it's not stopping anyone from anything, it's wasted time, isn't it?

I've covered this before. Pay attention this time, okay?

Some laws prohibit harmful or dangerous behavior, like running red lights, or armed robbery. Those are good laws that need to be on the books. They may not stop all people from doing those things, however, they are necessary in order to prosecute violators through the judicial system. If the law isn't on the books, we can't punish the behavior.

Then there are other types of laws, which go far beyond prohibiting dangerous and harmful behavior. And that's where many of the gun laws have gone. For example, prohibiting handgun magazines that hold over 10 rounds, or prohibiting guns with pistol grips, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. These kinds of things do nothing to harm anyone by themselves. These are the type of useless laws which should be revoked.

The only way to hurt someone with a flash suppressor is to unscrew it from the end of your gun barrel and throw it at someone. But I can do that with a rock.

New "crimes" have been invented, based simply upon the ownership of certain firearms, or the possession of certain features on guns. They have nothing to do with actual wrongful behavior against others.

If someone uses a firearm to threaten or harm someone, we already have laws on the books to cover that; murder, aggravated assault, and so on. Those are the crimes they should be charged with, and punished severely.

But to turn law-abiding citizens who haven't hurt anyone, into criminals, just because they have a flash suppressor or a pistol grip stock, is ridiculous.

We should punish people for wrongful behavior, not over things like the technical features of the guns they own.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

at least they should be warned of the local laws that might affect them, don´t you think?

If your principle were to apply, they would be handing out pamphlets covering a wide range of subjects, like traffic laws, drug laws, and so on.

But this organization is only warning about one new gun law, for the purpose inducing fear to hurt the tourism industry, to punish the state for not defeating this law as they would have wished.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I don't believe that it will end up being a defense against prosecution in a civil case

From the news story in message #1:

The law also effectively prevents civil legal action by victims of such shootings.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't believe that it will end up being a defense against prosecution in a civil case

From the news story in message #1:

The law also effectively prevents civil legal action by victims of such shootings.

I missed seeing that line - thanks, John!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Botellines 0]

Quote

It's the same deterrence that (to a point) works against common crime. The criminals don't know who's armed, so the overall amount of muggings / strong-arm robberies goes down.

Taking away the likely misuse of all those legal firearms out there. How do you know that when firearms are all too common criminals will not resort to shoot first, take your wallet later?

Quote

The possibility of being harmed if you're acting like an ass is a natural law - the solution is not to act like an ass.

The possibility of being harmed if you act like an ass is a natural law worlwide. However the possibilite of being killed if you act like an ass is not that common at all. I would say just Florida so far.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

If your principle were to apply, they would be handing out pamphlets covering a wide range of subjects, like traffic laws, drug laws, and so on.

Only for those laws that greatly differ from the rest of the world. Following your examples, when you rent a car in the airport in England you are warned in several signs that you must drive in the left of the road, and when you travel to basicly anywere, you are reminded at the airport what you can and what you cannot take with you.

Quote

But this organization is only warning about one new gun law, for the purpose inducing fear to hurt the tourism industry, to punish the state for not defeating this law as they would have wished.

I see that. However, they have an agenda, and that is what theey are suppose to do. It is not like the NRA have such high morals that do not resort to tricks, like that.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Taking away the likely misuse of all those legal firearms out there. How do you know that when firearms are all too common criminals will not resort to shoot first, take your wallet later?

It been proven over and over again that it works, and confirmed by interviews with felons - we could "what if" this until the cows come home until you find a set of circumstances that suit your bias.

Quote

The possibility of being harmed if you act like an ass is a natural law worlwide. However the possibilite of being killed if you act like an ass is not that common at all. I would say just Florida so far.

Again...how is it so much higher? What are you basing your fears on? Are you saying that if YOU had a weapon, you'd kill someone that was belligerent but NOT a mortal threat?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706