Florida tourists warned of new gun law

[XNavyGunner 0]

Colorado has the Make My Day Law which is similar to this. If anyone breaks into your home, you can legally blow them away. Personally I like it, because if anyone breaks into my home they leave feet first.

[Hmm 0]

I think this law is great. Hopefully there'll be a drop in crime that'll validate it, though I'm sure the leftest wackos will still find a way to denigrate it. Even if not, at least ones rights to protection are no longer being tread upon by socialists. This and the Supreme court openings bring hope to this country.

And to dwell on the "looney with a gun" scenario begs the question, should we ban cars because a looney psychopath might run over someone? Or maybe hammers because someone might get killed because they want to cuddle after sex.

Edited October 6, 2005 by Hmm

[40nrockinon 0]

Yes, it is a scary thought. But what if someone went to Florida & didn't know about the law & threatened someone? Could the state be sued for not informing visitors to their state? I could honestly see that happening.

It is a real double-edged sword. Yes, we do have police officers to help prevent & deter crime, but like was mentioned they cannot possibly be everywhere. If some looney is threatening you...what are you going to do? Besides you never really know what someone may do or what weapons they may be carrying.

Here's a case for you...

My hubby & I were in the motel biz in a famous tourist town here in CA. He was threatened one night by a "guest" of the motel. Well, it took the police 25 minutes to get there!!! Here's the kicker...THE POLICE DEPT. WAS LOCATED JUST ACROSS THE STREET!!! (No, hubby wasn't carrying a weapon of any kind)

Great!!! He coulda been laying in apool of blood dying whie they tried to make the 30 second walk from their head quarters!!

40nrockinon

[Hmm 0]

If someone goes to Florida and threatens someone with bodily harm, and they get shot, they got what they deserved. One couldn't sue a state over something like this, would go against state rights.

[Tommy 1]

The disarming of legal American citizens, is the final step garunteeing a police state.

You say that this banning of guns would be the final step before you have a total police state. Is there really that little faith in your government to think that they are just waiting to take away your rights and freedoms in the name of protection?

if you want a cop around all the time you want a police state, where you have no rights. Only the public servants or as they're called today, "authorities" (cops) can carry guns.

Things really aren’t as black and white as that in the real world. I like to see a police presence every now and then, but that doesn’t mean I also want to see civilians carrying guns around too in the places police are lacking.

Who will protect you from the military when they dismantle the bill of rights in favor of a more secure military rule, after the next terrorist attack.

I don’t think your .44 is going to save you if the government really wanted to enforce it’s will.. The gun culture in the States is too well entrenched into the National psyche for it to be reversed, and so we can only look at not making things worse. Therefore in that regard this is definitely a step in the wrong direction. What comes after this? If you can now shoot when you feel threatened, how about shooting if you’re being tailgated, isn’t that a threatening situation?

The crime has to fit the punishment; and believe it or not, not every criminal deserves to be shot. More faith has to be put into the judiciary here; it is NOT the role of the civilian to act as judge, jury and executioner, and while I believe u should have the right to defend yourself, you do not have the right to kill someone because you might feel threatened.

The Florida tourism industry, however, is taking the campaign seriously. Visit Florida, the state's official tourism marketing arm, issued a statement calling Florida "a very safe and secure destination that excels in caring for its visitors.

If they truly believed this, then there would be no need for such a law to be passed.

I bet it is even scarier to have to live in fear to run away.

That’s the whole point though, what this bill is ultimately going to do is to create a culture of fear for your fellow man. Fear that heaven forbid you might come across threatening one day and he’s going to blast you to pieces. I think the law enforcing should be left to the police, and not taken into your own hands.

I think you should have a right to defend yourself.

Noone is saying you don’t have that right; but if someone is trying to steal your car, and you blow him apart; does the punishment really fit the crime? There is a reason the judicial system exists; so there is no need for the civilians to dish out their own brand of justice. This bill seems to want to encourage a vigilante society.

I found another interesting article about this bill being passed HERE

"Under the wording of this bill, somebody could go onto any of the streets and if they think somebody is walking toward them in a threatening fashion, they can pull out a gun and begin blasting away," said Sen. Steven Geller, D-Hallandale Beach, who sought unsuccessfully to amend the bill on Tuesday.

"We're heading towards a Wild West mentality," Geller said. "I am concerned that you could literally have two guys standing on the street, both of them ready, the guns at their side, and then say 'Well the other guy threatened me so I pulled a gun and shot him in self defense.'

I think this Bill is way too vague in what it is proposing. 'Threatening' can be interpreted many ways. ‘Life threatening’ however is a bit more specific.

From www.justfacts.com:

When citizens use guns for protection from criminals, the criminal is wounded in about 1 out of every 100 instances, and the criminal is killed in about 1 out of every 1000 instances.

I think the stats are quite interesting. It seems that the deterrent of having guns works, yet people can’t seem to shoot their criminals too well.

Sorry about the 'quote, reply' disection technique. These are just some thoughts I feel on the matter. I don’t wish to start a ‘should guns be banned’ debate on the issue, as that’s not what I’m advocating either, I just wanted to pen down some points.

[HotDogBun 0]

You say that this banning of guns would be the final step before you have a total police state. Is there really that little faith in your government to think that they are just waiting to take away your rights and freedoms in the name of protection?

Things really aren’t as black and white as that in the real world. I like to see a police presence every now and then, but that doesn’t mean I also want to see civilians carrying guns around too in the places police are lacking.

I don’t think your .44 is going to save you if the government really wanted to enforce it’s will.. The gun culture in the States is too well entrenched into the National psyche for it to be reversed, and so we can only look at not making things worse. Therefore in that regard this is definitely a step in the wrong direction. What comes after this? If you can now shoot when you feel threatened, how about shooting if you’re being tailgated, isn’t that a threatening situation?

The crime has to fit the punishment; and believe it or not, not every criminal deserves to be shot. More faith has to be put into the judiciary here; it is NOT the role of the civilian to act as judge, jury and executioner, and while I believe u should have the right to defend yourself, you do not have the right to kill someone because you might feel threatened.

If they truly believed this, then there would be no need for such a law to be passed.

That’s the whole point though, what this bill is ultimately going to do is to create a culture of fear for your fellow man. Fear that heaven forbid you might come across threatening one day and he’s going to blast you to pieces. I think the law enforcing should be left to the police, and not taken into your own hands.

Noone is saying you don’t have that right; but if someone is trying to steal your car, and you blow him apart; does the punishment really fit the crime? There is a reason the judicial system exists; so there is no need for the civilians to dish out their own brand of justice. This bill seems to want to encourage a vigilante society.

I found another interesting article about this bill being passed HERE

I think this Bill is way too vague in what it is proposing. 'Threatening' can be interpreted many ways. ‘Life threatening’ however is a bit more specific.

From www.justfacts.com:

I think the stats are quite interesting. It seems that the deterrent of having guns works, yet people can’t seem to shoot their criminals too well.

Sorry about the 'quote, reply' disection technique. These are just some thoughts I feel on the matter. I don’t wish to start a ‘should guns be banned’ debate on the issue, as that’s not what I’m advocating either, I just wanted to pen down some points.

guns are used to prevent a crime over 750,000 times a year in the USA (and thats the LOWEST statistic, some studies put it at over 2,000,000 times a year) and very rarely do you have to do more then simply point a gun at someone to end a conflict. Most instances of guns used for self defense do not involve a shot being fired.

[XNavyGunner 0]

Noone is saying you don’t have that right; but if someone is trying to steal your car, and you blow him apart; does the punishment really fit the crime? There is a reason the judicial system exists; so there is no need for the civilians to dish out their own brand of justice. This bill seems to want to encourage a vigilante society.

If someone is trying to steal my car and I have a gun, yes I will use it. That is MY right. Quit worrying about thugs. They don't worry about citizens.

[__Kratos__ 14]

Noone is saying you don’t have that right; but if someone is trying to steal your car, and you blow him apart; does the punishment really fit the crime? There is a reason the judicial system exists; so there is no need for the civilians to dish out their own brand of justice. This bill seems to want to encourage a vigilante society.

The bill is FOR self-defense when you feel THREATENED! So if you blow the guy away that is stealing your car... you'll get in trouble, because stealing your car isn't threatening you nor is it in self defense if you splatter his brains.

[Michelle 23,481]

True Kratos, the law in Tennessee is that even if they have assaulted you if they are running away you are no longer in immanent danger. Therefore, it is murder and not self defense.

[PadawanOsswe 1]

in that case... shoot their leg with a .45

-gets them on the ground, terminating much of the threat

-since they cant run, they can be arrested.

all these damn self-defense law are sickening

for example.

-you can shoot a guy who breaks into your home with the intent of murder, but CANNOT shoot the guy with the intent of stealing something.

House resident: FREEZE! are you here to kill me or steal something?

Criminal: steal your stuff.

House Resident: oh, well why didnt you just say so?

[Michelle 23,481]

Believe me, after watching our guest house being robbed from the main house while waiting for the police for thirty minutes, shooting them in the leg is a very real possibility if it happens again.

I happened to have had a 45 in my hand the whole time.

[Fluffybunny 51]

You say that this banning of guns would be the final step before you have a total police state. Is there really that little faith in your government to think that they are just waiting to take away your rights and freedoms in the name of protection?

Well, unfortunately, yes. I do not trust my government as far as I can throw it, and with as fat as it has gotten off of my tax dollar, it isn't very far.

With as wacky as this government has been lately, I do not trust it to continue to watch out for MY best interest. There are just too many politicians that are busy making millions to do silly things like uphold the Constitution of the United States. There have been several democrats that have flat out said that they are working towards removing all guns from the civilian population, Barbara Boxer being just one of them. Some people may like that idea, but after seeing how New Orleans reacted to the flood it is really clear to me that we are all on our own in the event of any kind of problems in our society.

The problem with laws that restrict guns is that only law abiding people will follow the laws; the people that are the problem will never pay attention and therefore you have a society where people can't protect themselves from the lowest of the low.

So no, I don't trust my government to take care of me, or to be overly concerned with my rights. Looking at some of the things that happened after 9/11 and the bills that were passed, it is just a tiny indication of what is coming in the near future.

[Michelle 23,481]

AMEN, brother Bunny!!!

[Baldwin 0]

Call me crazy but any policy that allows shoot first ask questions later seems retarded to me. It might be ok for those, sane, well tempered people who own guns but how can you ignore those sick minded individuals that just wanna blow someone head off? A gun should scare anyone off without fireing a shot unless they too have a gun, then, shoot below the waist. A policy in which everyone could just carry a gun but stricter investigations/penalties into uncalled for shooting would be better in my opinion.

[Michelle 23,481]

There seems to be a misconception about the legalities of owning a gun from people that don't live in the US. IF, mind you IF, you buy a gun legally they do a background check. A big BUT, is that there are many guns on the black market and or inherited from family member to family member. For example, I own a gun that belonged to my Father. I don't know how it came into his possession because he died when I was thirteen. Am I going to get rid of it for that reason? Well, noooo.....but, who's to say I'm not crazy as a loon and don't need to have it???

I was only joking about the fact that I might shoot someone in the leg. If I feel threatened enough to show someone that I have a gun then I have *sigh* resigned myself to the fact that I may have to kill and I'm not going to just wing them. That only works in the movies, and as we've all seen it doesn't usually work out very well.

EDIT:I'm all for stricter penalties Baldwin, but, as most of the police officers that I know will will tell you, they are getting sick of bringing them in and then they are out on the street the very next day.

Edited October 8, 2005 by Michelle

[Mr Slayer 4]

If the prime of American freedom is the right of carrying a gun at all times, then I must have misunderstood the meaning of freedom.

Am I the only one thinking this system is insane???

[twpdyp 1]

Ohh no another gun thread. While I do not live in Florida anymore I am whole heartedly behind any laws that give people the right to not only defend themselves and their family but their property as well. By the way I would recommend to any would be thieves before you come my way be advised that bulge under my shirt is a .44 mag and that thing standing up next to my bed is a 12 gauge pump shotgun. One more thing my wife carries a .357 mag and she knows how to use it and the shotgun. Have a Nice Day.

[XNavyGunner 0]

Here's a question. Why is it the business of anyone who doesn't live in Fla or this country?

[Shivel 3]

Florida state law prohibits all felons from possessing a firearm.

All others may pay for a permit to carry a concealed gun.

Jeb Bush states that Florida's crime rate has significantly dropped

during his administration.

Carjacking has dropped way down.

Well when you put it that way, it does sound like a pretty okay idea.

It still sounds a bit dangerous though..

[Shivel 3]

Here's a question. Why is it the business of anyone who doesn't live in Fla or this country?

It's their business because we share the same planet and I'm pretty sure we all worry about the safety of eachother.

[XNavyGunner 0]

It's their business because we share the same planet and I'm pretty sure we all worry about the safety of eachother.

Riiiiight.

[Tommy 1]

The bill is FOR self-defense when you feel THREATENED! So if you blow the guy away that is stealing your car... you'll get in trouble, because stealing your car isn't threatening you nor is it in self defense if you splatter his brains.

It wasn’t the best example I admit, but I was trying to highlight the ambiguity of the term ‘threatening’. Classifying something as threatening seems very open to interpretation.

That was until I read the actual Bill, which says…

You can shoot if there is a ‘presumption that a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm exists.’ Which does make a lot more sense, and what I said it should say in the first place. The article comes across as a little misleading.

"Florida state law prohibits all felons from possessing a firearm"

Does anyone else see the paradox in that quote?

Here's a question. Why is it the business of anyone who doesn't live in Fla or this country?

Well XNavyGunner, This is a 'discussion' board; anyone is free to share their opinions and ideas on any area they feel like, regardless if it is in their State, region or country. Things would be a little bland otherwise, wouldn't you agree? While this law may not directly affect most of us doesn’t mean we can’t discuss the implications of introducing it.

Edited October 9, 2005 by Tommy

[Annie269 0]

I am a Florida resident and I have mixed feelings about this law. I do feel that one should have a right to defend hisself and his property. Unfortunately, you will have that small group of people who will take advantage of this new law and cause problems. However, if someone wants to shoot you bad enough, they will find the means no matter what the law says. Only now they will have a better chance of not getting incarcerated for it. I really don't see where this law will make much of a difference for the average law-abiding Floridian. I don't think tourists will have many problems with this - they are our moneymakers. The majority of Floridians welcome tourists and go out of our way to make them feel at home. The areas that will most likely have problems will be the inner city crime areas that already have enormous problems anyhow - areas where tourists don't go anyway.

[HotDogBun 0]

It's their business because we share the same planet and I'm pretty sure we all worry about the safety of eachother.

LMAO, its none of your business

[Hmm 0]

It amuses me to see how the European socialists view our rights to defend ourselves. Lets review, Sweden, with it's restrictive gun laws, had a gun homicide/suicide rate of 11.58 per 100,000 people in '94, the US rate was 1.85 per 100,000. What does this tell you? Gun control, aside from being an affront to ones basic rights, plainly doesn't work. People can never seem to understand that just because one owns a gun, doesn't turn them into a raving maniac. Gun control NEVER taken a gun from a criminal, it ONLY effects those citizens who have respect for the laws. So, to hear the Europeans consider us barbarians because we don't blindly follow along in the socialist or communist ways of right restrictions makes me laugh.

Edited October 10, 2005 by Hmm