New gun law in Florida

[iyfyoufhl]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html

run and hide peaceful citizens, don't piss off Florida's people

in a nutshell, now in Florida you can carry a gun everywhere and even shoot it in your car, bussiness, street or home, and get away with it

Good Luck

 

[NotGonnaDoIt]

This is not a gun law, mrerely a self-defense law.

Second, people can't go blasting things up willy nilly. To even carry a gun legally in the first place they would have to have CCW permits. Then if they even drew their weapon the action would have to be justified.

 

[Recoil]

Pfff, let natural selection take care of this... :upstare: I'm done with getting concerned about US-gun laws...

 

[iyfyoufhl]

i'm willing to bet that the murder rate in US will go up after this law

plus, people say that other states might adopt the same law

 

[iyfyoufhl]

i'm scared now

 

[short recoil]

but when your in public it's the officers job to protect you not you.

It's not your job to protect yourself?
Wow, what a ****ed up soceity we must live in.

i'm willing to bet that the murder rate in US will go up after this law

plus, people say that other states might adopt the same law

Other states that have already adopted carry laws have seen gun related deaths fall.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Other states that have already adopted carry laws have seen gun related deaths fall.

i don't wanna come out as a tight ass, but i need some sources

 

[The Monkey]

I don't now why I care about this, but I do.

 

[No Limit]

yea but the point is that they can still shoot at anyone anytime they feel their life's threatened... imo that's HORRIBLE! on your own property sure... but when your in public it's the officers job to protect you not you. Besides that people can make stories up easily now covering up the tru reason of why they shot someone. This just spells trouble all over. And im a gun advocate too, shit my dad is in the NRA, and i will be too. But this is overboard....

Okay, so if someone is shooting at me and I happen to carry a gun with me at all times I should fall on the ground and pray the police come before I am dead instead of trying to protect myself with my weapon?

 

[iyfyoufhl]

It's not your job to protect yourself?
Wow, what a ****ed up soceity we must live in.
.

it was your job to protect yourself, in middle ages
but we live in a civil society were civil protection a.k.a police have to protect us because WE PAY THEM

 

[NotGonnaDoIt]

it was your job to protect yourself, in middle ages
but we live in a civil society were civil protection a.k.a police have to protect us because WE PAY THEM

What happens if they don't protect us? Is it not in our right to protect ourselvelves, especially if we have doubts about the people assigned to protect us?

 

[iyfyoufhl]

What happens if they don't protect us? Is it not in our right to protect ourselvelves, especially if we have doubts about the people assigned to protect us?

instead of making a new gun law, they should have focused on police work and its improvment

sorry, but i'm just strongly agaist guns

 

[NotGonnaDoIt]

instead of making a new gun law, they should have focused on police work and its improvment

sorry, but i'm just strongly agaist guns

You didn't answer my questions.

For the second time, it is not a gun law, it is a self-defense law. For example, if you hit someone with a stick in self defense the action would be justified under this law.

 

[short recoil]

yea sure u should defend your self if something is actually happening. But i can think of so many ways this can be manipulated to work for criminals, and murderers rather against them!

ok then, how?

 

[iyfyoufhl]

You didn't answer my questions.

For the second time, it is not a gun law, it is a self-defense law. For example, if you hit someone with a stick in self defense the action would be justified under this law.

i somewhat agree with your point
but i guess what i'm trying to say is that i really don't trust regular civilians with guns, stick for a self defense is one thing (it's hard to kill somebody with a stick) gun on the other hand, just point and shoot

 

[iyfyoufhl]

how bout theirs someone i hate, were on a back street w/ no one else around. I just happen to walk past this person randomly, and everyone knows we have a beef. So say i just shoot him, then say he attacked me. It's not hard to make a couple cuts on ur self and stuff and say that he drew his gun first.

perfect example

 

[NotGonnaDoIt]

just point and shoot

It is not that simple.

For one, you have to have a CCW liscense to carry guns legally. It costs more than $100/year and has to have required shooting and academic courses to even get the weapon, at least 10 hours of that training. If somone were to even draw a weapon on the streets without this liscense they would have committed a crime as well.

Second, unless your average person is at point blank range, the chances they will hit their target is extremely slim. Unfortunatly I can't back that up, but if you ever shot a handgun you would see my point.

Third, even licensed, if you were in a bank or another establishment that disallowed firearms on the premesis (to meet that requirement all that has to be done is to have a sign posted) and had a firearm you would have comitted a felony and could be even more stingently prosecuted if the firearm is actually used, even in self defense.

Fourth, any gun that you want to use with a CCW has to be registered. If a person had a stolen or unregeisted gun and used it, even in self defense, they would have committed a crime.

Fifth, almost any new gun costs at least $300.

A great deal more than, "point and shoot," is at play when it comes to using guns.

 

[Gray Fox]

This is a viciouse cyscle, now a lot of folks can carry a gun, other people feel threatened and they will go and buy a gun themselfes and carry it. This law just amkes it easier to transport guns, easier for criminals to get to guns.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

It is not that simple.

For one, you have to have a CCW liscense to carry guns legally. It costs more than $100/year and has to have required shooting and academic courses to even get the weapon, at least 10 hours of that training. If somone were to even draw a weapon on the streets without this liscense they would have committed a crime as well.

Second, unless your average person is at point blank range, the chances they will hit their target is extremely slim. Unfortunatly I can't back that up, but if you ever shot a handgun you would see my point.

Third, even licensed, if you were in a bank or another establishment that disallowed firearms on the premesis (to meet that requirement all that has to be done is to have a sign posted) and had a firearm you would have comitted a felony and could be even more stingently prosecuted if the firearm is actually used, even in self defense.

Fourth, any gun that you want to use with a CCW has to be registered. If a person had a stolen or unregeisted gun and used it, even in self defense, they would have committed a crime.

Fifth, almost any new gun costs at least $300.

A great deal more than, "point and shoot," is at play when it comes to using guns.

true true true
but i was making a comparasing between a gun and a stick and i said that it's a lot easier to kill with a gun than with a stick, that's all

 

[NotGonnaDoIt]

money to most criminals isn't an object, they get what they want however they can. My dad has the permit (i dont know the specific term) where he can carry his gun anywhere he wants already. As long as it stays concealed though...

The fact remains, however, that if a criminal were out and about walking the streets with an unregistered firearm and shot someone in self defense and was being investigated for it, he would be prosecuted for whatever crime he was suspected of to begin with that made him a criminal and charged with carrying an illegal weapon (unregistered firearm).

 

[NotGonnaDoIt]

true true true
but i was making a comparasing between a gun and a stick and i said that it's a lot easier to kill with a gun than with a stick, that's all

Then you missed my point. It is not a lot easier to kill with a gun than a stick. The reasons I mentioned above prove my assertion.

Sure it might take a great deal more physical strenght to make a stick cause death. But a pserson would have to jump through a lot of hoops to even legall own a gun and use it. Whereas anyone can pick a stick or a rock up off the ground.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Then you missed my point. It is not a lot easier to kill with a gun than a stick. The reasons I mentioned above prove my assertion.

Sure it might take a great deal more physical strenght to make a stick cause death. But a pserson would have to jump through a lot of hoops to even legall own a gun and use it. Whereas anyone can pick a stick or a rock up off the ground.

ok, check this out, i'm driving down a highway in Florida, i'm being a prick and cut this guy of and flip him off, we he can shoot me and say that i threaded his life

but i do see your point and i agree with you, but you have to agree with me that with a gun you have a person's life at your finger-tip, but that's not the case with a stick

 

[CptStern]

Pfff, let natural selection take care of this... :upstare: I'm done with getting concerned about US-gun laws...

QFE :thumbs:

 

[NotGonnaDoIt]

ok, check this out, i'm driving down a highway in Florida, i'm being a prick and cut this guy of and flip him off, we he can shoot me and say that i threaded his life

but i do see your point and i agree with you, but you have to agree with me that with a gun you have a person's life at your finger-tip, but that's not the case with a stick

yes but criminals can legally own guns too you know... or have friends who legally own guns. Not all criminals have a record... infact the really dangerous ones dont.

Honestly I think there are too many variables involved to make any diffinitive solutions or answers. Any scenario you come up with will by hypothetical. In my personal opinion hypothetical situations shouldn't be the basis for policy.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Honestly I think there are too many variables involved to make any diffinitive solutions or answers. Any scenario you come up with will by hypothetical. In my personal opinion hypothetical situations shouldn't be the basis for policy.

fair enough, so, anyway, what's your oppinoin on this? do you think it's a good idea? (main topic of this thread)

 

[NotGonnaDoIt]

I don't live in Florida. I believe that the people have spoken and if that is what they want the so be it. Honestly, it seems like a good thing so far. Until we see it being abused I don't see any reason to doubt the law.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

I believe that the people have spoken and if that is what they want the so be it. .

what people? source?

 

[NotGonnaDoIt]

what people? source?

My source is any beginner's Government class.

State's representatives and senators are elected by the people as the people's voice.

 

[qckbeam]

Basically, from what I gather, Floridians are now legally allowed to decide whether or not they should defend themselves from an attacker or flee? Ok...what's the big deal here? This isn't a gun law, it's a self-defense law. People in Florida are allowed to stand their ground and fight if they're attacked now. According to that article a Floridian "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." So it's not as if you can just go around killing whoever you like. You're allowed to meet force with equal, reasonable force. You can't blow someone’s brains out because they threw an empty beer can at you during a hockey game or challenge anyone to a duel. If you're in a situation that escalates to a serious level quickly you can worry about finding a way to end it rather than looking for a way to run. Letting people protect themselves sounds fine to me.

 

[qckbeam]

obviously u didn't read the whole thread qck D: we gave many reasons and examples of how this can turn into a problme easily.

I read the thread. Now what do you mean? Examples such as this?

how bout theirs someone i hate, were on a back street w/ no one else around. I just happen to walk past this person randomly, and everyone knows we have a beef. So say i just shoot him, then say he attacked me. It's not hard to make a couple cuts on ur self and stuff and say that he drew his gun first.

You could have done that before this law, supposing you legally own a gun and a license to carry it of course. You've always been allowed to protect your life if you're in imminent danger of having it taken from you. So you could have shot the man and moved things around a bit to make it look like that were the case far before this law went into effect. Again, the new law doesn't just allow you to hurt someone because of a little spat. You can meet force with equal force. You can't attack anyone you like, you can't challenge anyone to a duel, and you can't kill a man for shoving you or anything ridiculous like that. It's in place to protect the victim I would imagine. As I understand it, before this you could be in legal trouble if you killed or injured a man who had been attacking you if there was a way to flee from the situation. Of course, in a normal attack you have only seconds to make a decision. So now you can just confront your foe rather than wasting precious time looking for a way to run. People should be allowed to engage their attacker if they feel they have to. What's so bad about letting a man stand his ground against someone that means him harm?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

i don't wanna come out as a tight ass, but i need some sources

* In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws. (14)

* As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states. (3)

* In 1996, Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School published the results of a crime study conducted using FBI data for all 3,045 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992. (15)

* The study sought to answer the question, "What happens to crime when states adopt right-to-carry laws?" (15)

* Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:
-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder

for the 10 states that adopted these laws between 1977 and 1992. (7)
* Using 1995 numbers, this amounts to:

-- 1 more accidental gun death,
-- 316 less murders,
-- 939 less rapes,
-- and 14,702 less aggravated assaults

in these 10 states annually. (16)



* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida
homicide rate -36%
firearm homicide rate -37%
handgun homicide rate -41%

United States
homicide rate -.4%
firearm homicide rate +15%
handgun homicide rate +24%


www.justfacts.com

 

[short recoil]

* In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws. (14)

* As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states. (3)

* In 1996, Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School published the results of a crime study conducted using FBI data for all 3,045 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992. (15)

* The study sought to answer the question, "What happens to crime when states adopt right-to-carry laws?" (15)

* Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:
-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder

for the 10 states that adopted these laws between 1977 and 1992. (7)
* Using 1995 numbers, this amounts to:

-- 1 more accidental gun death,
-- 316 less murders,
-- 939 less rapes,
-- and 14,702 less aggravated assaults

in these 10 states annually. (16)



* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida
homicide rate -36%
firearm homicide rate -37%
handgun homicide rate -41%

United States
homicide rate -.4%
firearm homicide rate +15%
handgun homicide rate +24%


www.justfacts.com

I had those figures earlier, i didn't post them because they were from a pro gun site and that could have been bias.
There have been right to carry laws in other countries and violent crime has reduced because of it with a slight disadvantage of like .5% increase in firearm accidents.

 

[Tr0n]

I hope alabama does something like this.

 

[Steve]

I hope alabama does something like this.

You know if you shoot somebody, you can't lay low at my place, right?

 

[Tr0n]

You know if you shoot somebody, you can't lay low at my place, right?

Dizzam't.

Well I don't plan on shooting anybody anytime soon.

 

[qckbeam]

They are not telling anyone to shoot anyone, and this has nothing to do with guns in specific. The only thing that's changed here is that if you defend yourself against an attacker while using reasonable force to fight them off you won't come under any legal fire afterwards. It doesn't encourage people to shoot or otherwise attempt to murder anybody else. It just frees a person to defend himself if the situation calls for it. Terrible, I know.

 

[Lobotomy Lobster]

In my humble opinion, this law seems to be saying that the philosophy of "an eye for an eye" is perfectly legitimate.

I can't see this law doing much good other than increasing the number of people who carry weapons with them when they go out in public, and fueling feelings of paranoia.

Every citizen has the right to defend themselves if they are attacked. However, when the level of force may well be lethal, it should be left to proffessionals with both experience and advanced training. Leaving the decision to be made by an untrained citizen is a very bad idea. While there may be some individuals who would just the situation correctly, many would not. Proffessional police know how to contain a violent situation and bring it to a peaceful climax if possible; the majority of untrained citizens don't.

It also would do the opposite of increasing safety, as it would make it far easier for criminals to carry weapons on the pretence of "self defence" (indeed, this happens already, but it only exacerbates the situation)

 

[jverne]

it's the officers job to protect you not you

Oh well at leat you wont have the problem of overpopulation in the US!

 

[jverne]

It is not that simple.

For one, you have to have a CCW liscense to carry guns legally. It costs more than $100/year and has to have required shooting and academic courses to even get the weapon, at least 10 hours of that training. If somone were to even draw a weapon on the streets without this liscense they would have committed a crime as well.

Second, unless your average person is at point blank range, the chances they will hit their target is extremely slim. Unfortunatly I can't back that up, but if you ever shot a handgun you would see my point.

Third, even licensed, if you were in a bank or another establishment that disallowed firearms on the premesis (to meet that requirement all that has to be done is to have a sign posted) and had a firearm you would have comitted a felony and could be even more stingently prosecuted if the firearm is actually used, even in self defense.

Fourth, any gun that you want to use with a CCW has to be registered. If a person had a stolen or unregeisted gun and used it, even in self defense, they would have committed a crime.

Fifth, almost any new gun costs at least $300.

A great deal more than, "point and shoot," is at play when it comes to using guns.

100$/year OMG...i ****ing spend more per month for my launch money(i'm not even rich)! 100$ is nothing, you even get training! You are contradicting yourself, an average person will have to train so he basicaly becoms a better shoot! If you're dead what would you care if that guy had a license or a registred gun!!!?!?!?!?

Special care should be taken with you US dudes, nutjobs!

I do like guns and i try to respect them as much as possible, but most folk doesn't! They shouldn't have guns!

 

[jondy]

Pfff, let natural selection take care of this... :upstare: I'm done with getting concerned about US-gun laws...

Heh, pretty much sums up how I feel