|
Florida republicans pass bill okaying shooting in public (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
"I need a gun!"
"Why?"
"To defend myself!"
"From who?"
"Crazy people and criminals!" |
But if its easier for regular people to get guns doesnt that by default make it easier for the crazies to get one as well? |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
But if its easier for regular people to get guns doesnt that by default make it easier for the crazies to get one as well? |
No, because criminals get guns illegally anyway. They don't follow laws, much less gun laws - that's what makes them criminals in the first place.
Anyway, I don't think that law makes it easier to get guns. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Having to go through the black market (and pay a lot more) to get a weapon as opposed to getting it from Wal-mart still makes it harder for crooks to get them. Agreed that you can never 100% get rid of them but at least most people cant obtain them.
Where you and i agree though is on the ridiculousnous of the gun registry. |
|
|
| tw1tch |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
"Crazy people and criminals!" |
Well that law just made it possible for anyone to be 'crazy' or a 'criminal'. The power has been given to the people to decide who is crazy or who is a criminal or who is threatening. So what is not threatening to one person, could very well feel threatening to another and they'd be within their rights to shoot you. If I saw you on the street and I felt 'threatened' I'd be legally allowed to shoot you.
Good plan, keep defending it! |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by tw1tch
So what is not threatening to one person, could very well feel threatening to another and they'd be within their rights to shoot you. If I saw you on the street and I felt 'threatened' I'd be legally allowed to shoot you. |
No, actually it's an objective standard. There must be a reasonable belief that one's life is in danger.
More info:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/05/de...e.ap/index.html
Florida to allow use of force even outside home
'Good, common sense, anti-crime issue'
TALLAHASSEE, Florida (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday he intends to sign a bill that would allow people who feel threatened -- even on the street or at a baseball game -- to "meet force with force" and defend themselves without fear of prosecution.
The measure, the top priority of the National Rifle Association in Florida this year, passed the House 94-20 on Tuesday. It had already passed the Senate.
Bush, who has championed tougher penalties for people convicted of using guns in crimes, said the bill is about self-defense and called it "a good, common sense, anti-crime issue."
The measure essentially extends a right Floridians already have in their home or car. Under present law, however, people attacked anywhere else are supposed to do what they can to avoid escalating the situation and can use deadly force only after they've tried to retreat.
"I'm sorry, people, but if I'm attacked I shouldn't have a duty to retreat," said the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Dennis Baxley. "That's a good way to get shot in the back."
Baxley said that if people have the clear right to defend themselves without having to worry about legal consequences, criminals will think twice.
Opponents feared the bill would make Florida resemble the wild West, but defenders say it is no different from what most other states allow in laws governing self-defense.
The bill 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." |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
I have no problem with self defence but the issue i have is the right to carry concealed weapons in the first place.
Im quite a libertarian and even i take issue with private concealment of arms. |
|
|
| Swamper |
 |
|
|
| RobbyG. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Swamper
|
:haha: :haha: ...I luv it when Conan OBrian shows clips of that show...SOO funny:D
ANyway as for everyone arming themselves up here???...all I have to say is...guns + roadrage = you know;)... I'm happy with our gun laws up here and that we do NOT have the right to bare arms...Besides if you we're in a situation when you needed to shoot at someone, you'll most likely miss & hurt/kill someone else...Shooting at a paper target is one thing but at a human being?...you'll miss or hesitate. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
No, because criminals get guns illegally anyway. They don't follow laws, much less gun laws - that's what makes them criminals in the first place.
Anyway, I don't think that law makes it easier to get guns. |
Criminals will get guns no matter what the gun laws are, in this respect you are correct.
What you fail to recognize, however, is that the more people that have guns the more likely it is that people will use them inappropriately. As difficult as it is to get certain guns in this country (rifles and shot guns are no trouble at all)people still obtain them legally. While at the time they get properly licensed and obtain the firearm they may be perfectly sound and reasonable that condition of responsibility and control is not guarenteed to exist perpetually. All of us have moments where we lose control and do things we would normally not. Many people get angry and hit their spouse or their children from time to time. If these people also have a hand gun in their pocket then there is potential for them to shoot rather then hit. Same with random people on the street that get into fist fights.... if they both have hand guns that can easily escallate into a gun fight. Now, if none of these individuals have guns then there is no potential for shootings in either of these situations.
I can understand your want to defend yourself, however, allowing more guns into circulation, particularly hand guns, and allowing more freedom to carry and use these weapons only makes for a more dangerous society. If you want to be safe from criminals with guns then lobby the government to find a real solution to prevent black market firearms from entering the country (ie tighter boarder security... as most of them enter from the US) or take stronger measures to locate and remove black market firearms from the streets. You may also want to lobby for larger police service budgets so that they can staff properly to enforce the gun laws that exist. These are all reasonable steps to increase your personal safety from these gun weilding criminals you fear so much.... arming everyone on the street is not. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
No, actually it's an objective standard. There must be a reasonable belief that one's life is in danger. |
Reasonable is not an objective standard... it is subjective. Reasonable, in law, is determined by the trier of fact (judge or jury) in each individual instance. Essentially, what is reasonable is what the trier of fact would have done in the same situation.... if the 12 person jury would have shot the guy then it was reasonable to shoot the guy, if they wouldn't have then the shooting was unreasonable. The wrinkle here is that we're talking about the criminal court's standard of proof so if one person on the jury thinks the shooting was reasonable then the shooter walks... your chances of finding one person that you can make believe that you felt threatened enough that you needed to shoot is pretty good.
A more objective standard (while still largely subjective) would be Canada's self defence standard. Normally in Canada you can only use a force to defend yourself that is proportionate to the force used against you.... for instance; attacker is unarmed = you must be unarmed or use a non-deadly object (a bat is a good example), attacker has a bat = you can use a eadged weapon, attacker has an eadged weapon = you can use a eadged weapon or firearm, attacker has a firearm you can use a firearm. This is based on past case law as opposed to any statute so it is still subjective but it is clearly less subjective then "reasonable" |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Having to go through the black market (and pay a lot more) to get a weapon as opposed to getting it from Wal-mart still makes it harder for crooks to get them. |
FYI, guns are much cheaper via the black market.... mainly because they are stolen or previously used. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
i had a conversation last summer at work with an engineer from detroit about guns. he told me he has two handguns at home and i asked him why. he simply said "cause i live in detroit" so i proceded to ask him if why he felt he needed a gun, and he said to protect me from other people with guns. but when i asked him weather or not he had ever seen a gunfight or heard gunshots, he said no to both. yet he still felt the need to keep two loaded handguns in his house, one in his night stand and the other in the top of his closet in the living room, neither of them locked or guarded in any way. people who leave their guns "at the ready" are more responsible for stupid deaths and killings than anyone else. all some yahoo has to do is walk into your house and grab a fully loaded weapon out of your closet.
my second point is incidents like columbine and such wouldnt have happend if the US used some common sense in their gun laws. a .270, .22 and a crack barrell 12 guage all have uses for hunting. handguns, tac-9's, uzis, etc have one purpose... to kill people. you dont go hunting for deer with a glock. so why do we need people owning handguns? canada is slightly better with our gun laws, in order to get a handgun in canada it is slightly more difficult as they require a restricted firearm certificate. but they are still availible. i really dont see a need for them outside police work. if you took them all off the market, your violent crime would plummet since its kinda hard to rob a bank with a deer rifle, let alone conceal a deer rifle in your coat.
my last point is people who own firearms but dont respect them. i dont know why peopel feel compeled to keep loaded weapons in bediside tables, closets, under beds etc. its a proven fact that a good percetage of the time if someone breaks in to your house it willbe them using that weapon and not you. i own 6 guns, two deer rifles (.270, .22) two shot guns (crack barrell 12 and 410) and two antique hand guns (1968 browning 9mm and a WWII colt revolver). all these guns are kept in a locked gun safe in my basement, in the case of the handguns, the chamber spool and clip are pulled out and stored with the firing bolts from both rifles in a separate locked box, and ammunition is in another location all together. this makes it increadinly hard for some crazy to break into my house and steal my guns. if everybody acted as prudently, there wouldnt be so many illegal weapons on the street. |
|
|
|
|
