Reply
Wed 6 Apr, 2005 04:50 pm
try again
U.S. National - AFP
Florida eyes allowing residents to open fire whenever they see threat
2 hours, 41 minutes ago U.S. National - AFP
MIAMI (AFP) - Florida's legislature has approved a bill that would give residents the right to open fire against anyone they perceive as a threat in public, instead of having to try to avoid a conflict as under prevailing law.
AFP/File Photo
Outraged opponents say the law will encourage Floridians to open fire first and ask questions later, fostering a sort of statewide Wild West shootout mentality. Supporters argue that criminals will think twice if they believe they are likely to be promptly shot when they assault someone.
Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who has said he plans to sign the bill, says it is "a good, commonsense, anti-crime issue."
Current state law allows residents to "shoot to kill if their property, such as their home or car, is invaded by an unknown assailant."
But it also states that if a resident is confronted or threatened in a public place, he or she must first try to avoid the confrontation or flee before taking any violent step in self defense against an assailant.
The bill, supported by the influential National Rifle Association, was approved by both houses of the Republican-run
Here in WI, the controversy is whether or not to allow private citizens to shoot feral cats (a genuine nuisance to wild life) and risk that pet and -- more likely -- farm cats will also be shot.
I'm glad to see that Fla is taking the animal rights approach and applying the principle directly to humans...
Now they have to legalize tanks, machine guns and bazookas to make it work better.
This is presented here in such a vague way that it is imposible to judge. If my home is invaded by thieves, or I am threatened in public with enough force to put me in fear of my life or safety, at some point, I want to be able to defend myself. This is reasonable, but I cannot judge this specific bill without hearing the specific details.
You seem to want to find an inconsistency among the people, such as me, who advocate a culture of respect for life. Why, I don't know, since it seems such a commendable idea. You cannot demonstrate such an inconsistency merely by listing cases in which we believe violence is acceptable, since such cases may or may not be inconsistent. For example, wanting to execute people who commit homicide with agravated circumstances is not inconsistent with being opposed to abortion, since the fetus is not guilty of murder.
I'm shocked the NRA would support this!
:wink:
Bullets flying in public places usually cause unintended victims -- often in the form of children sitting in a window or on a playground. Why is it so unreasonable to ask a person to try to avoid an armed confrontation in public?
Free, PM me your address and I'll send you the kool-aid. As soon as you drink it everything will become clear.
FreeDuck wrote:Bullets flying in public places usually cause unintended victims -- often in the form of children sitting in a window or on a playground. Why is it so unreasonable to ask a person to try to avoid an armed confrontation in public?
Because that person may be in a relatively isolated spot and in imminent fear of life or safety from someone assaulting him/her.
There are those who believe that we should all be armed so as to be ready for any threat. That approach was used in the Old West, if memory serves, until cooler heads prevailed. And thus began what is now known as "gun control."
As in, "Check your guns at the door." How far we've advanced!
D'artagnan wrote:There are those who believe that we should all be armed so as to be ready for any threat. That approach was used in the Old West, if memory serves, until cooler heads prevailed. And thus began what is now known as "gun control."
As in, "Check your guns at the door." How far we've advanced!
The right to defend yourself against invaders in your home, or assault, perhaps deadly, in public is fundamental. I do not believe you will be able to make a case against it except by ignoring or distorting the scenarios I have given.
Brandon you have swallowed the current doublespeak better than anyone I know in cyber space or the real world. I'm not trying to insult you because I can see you truly are sincere.
I stand in total jaw dropping awe of you.
blueveinedthrobber wrote:Brandon you have swallowed the current doublespeak better than anyone I know in cyber space or the real world. I'm not trying to insult you because I can see you truly are sincere.
I stand in total jaw dropping awe of you.
And you, like most of the liberals I have observed, have declined to address the point I made, preferring name calling instead. My interpretation is that you have not addressed the substance of what I said because you cannot, and no amount of facility with complex insults will obscure that fact.
Im owna head me on down ta Floreeda and open me up a chi chi holsterery shoppe. Ifn ya gonna be a packin, you should make a statement with a matching holster, shoes and hat.
In Missouri, it is still illegal to carry a concealed weapon longer than 6 feet.
Well, I'm not sure what the point was that you made, but I am a little concerned that there's nothing stopping someone from shooting someone on the street and claiming that they were attacked and in fear for their life. The "assailant" would tell no tales.
farmerman wrote:
In Missouri, it is still illegal to carry a concealed weapon longer than 6 feet.
Can you coneal a weapon longer than 6 feet?
I also stand in jaw dropping awe at the stylistic prose of the great Brandon9000.
This has nothing to do with protecting yourself in your home. This has everything to do with arming a paranoid presumptive populace and giving them the option to be judge, jury AND executioner all at the same time.
Only in Florida...
FreeDuck wrote:Well, I'm not sure what the point was that you made, but I am a little concerned that there's nothing stopping someone from shooting someone on the street and claiming that they were attacked and in fear for their life. The "assailant" would tell no tales.
Are you not concerned that someone might be the victim of a violent attack, and upon defending himself, end up in jail because of unjust laws. Self-defense is a fundamental right.
FreeDuck wrote:farmerman wrote:
In Missouri, it is still illegal to carry a concealed weapon longer than 6 feet.
Can you coneal a weapon longer than 6 feet?
If you can fold it, I guess...
Dookiestix wrote:I also stand in jaw dropping awe at the stylistic prose of the great Brandon9000.
This has nothing to do with protecting yourself in your home. This has everything to do with arming a paranoid presumptive populace and giving them the option to be judge, jury AND executioner all at the same time.
Only in Florida...
As I said, I have not seen a good description of the law and cannot judge it. However, I do believe that a person has the right to defend himself from a home intruder or from threat to life and limb in public. Argue with that, without distorting what I said, if you can.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace