phyllis

It was passed over a week ago, but I just ran across it.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/050406/21/tual.html

__________________

_Ender_

and next week ladies and gentlemen we're going to pass the "If they look at you weird, you can shoot me in the head" bill. Basically, if somebody looks at you weird, or just looks at you at all, you're allowd to shoot them.

Root

If it moves kill it
If it doesn't move kill it
If it doesn't move but looks like it might move kill it

Oh wait - thats the rules for deathmatch doom. Heh.

Root

__________________

DudeMan

huh...

well what a bull law, if i shoot and kill you, who the hell will know you were threatening me or not?

ridiculous, reguardless of gun ownership which isnt a secret i dont agree with, this sounds perthetic, stand your ground bill, i mean even the name makes it heroic to shoot someone,

who has to see this alledged threatening behavior?

what counts as threatening behavior?

what stops me from shooting you and saying i felt threatened?

at what length must i be threatened (by a gun, knife fists or just plain old verbal cussing)?

this just sounds like another accident waiting to happen.

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

CingularDuality

You guys are trying to argue against this law based on a biased news article? C'mon...

Read the bill here.

It's not unreasonable:
I'm confused, though, as most of the news articles are referencing this related bill which the Florida House website says hasn't been voted on:
I certainly like the second one better...

And I'd like to know what exactly is unreasonable about either of these bills...

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

TheFeniX

We've had this in Texas since the inseption of the CHL law.

Witnesses and forensic evidence.

The bill states the fact that no person should be forced to outrun a violent criminal before defending themselves. Would you turn your back on a guy with a knife who looks like he can run track? Don't get me wrong, for a fat guy, I can "book it" when the need arises. On the other hand, my mother couldn't. I've told her numerous times if some psycho tries to stab, shoot, rape her: she needs to start firing center mass.

Depends, but needless: if forensics find 15 9mm rounds in his back, you won't be going home for a while. You'd be surprised how much professionals can put together with ballistics. Really cool stuff.

"I'm going to kill you" as he pulls a knife. There's no hard law in place because life is rarely black and white.

Maybe witnesses, morality, situational variables. What's to stop me from beating some guy to death for looking at me funny: the fact that your average citizen is not a gun crazy serial killer. Anyone (well, those that have half a brain) who carries a gun legally knows how much they have at stake by pulling that trigger.

You act like I can just shoot some guy triying to rob me and they throw a parade and I get a free trip to Hawaii. It's not something most people take lightly.

Verbal attacks never constitute the use of deadly force. Now, some guy saying "I'm going to crack your skull open" as he advances with a bat: would constitute the use of deadly force.

This law changes nothing Texan's haven't already had the ability to do. It just says that you don't have to risk turning your back to an "attacker (note: not some guy you were talking smack to, or is shouting racist comments at you, he's an attacker: hence his goal is to inflict bodily harm upon you.)" before responding using force.

Yea, well so is letting 16 year-olds drive, having the speed limit at 70 mph, and letting Micheal Jackson out of jail.

Now, I'm going to break down this article because Yahoo's writers are stupid:

Bzzt wrong! I'll tell you why: a gun owner cannot carry a loaded gun on the street.This wording is horrible. These two quotes shold be put together and you get the whole deal.

It should read: "A licensed gun carrier can fire upon an attacker without trying to escape first." They broke it up probably due to either idiot writers, or anti-gun sentiment.

This says you don't have to expose yourself to un-do risk before defending yourself from an attacker.

He's right, but his name is Jeb, so that detracts from it.

Yea well, whoever said this is an idiot.

__________________

DudeMan

YOU KNOW WHAT, IM NOT EVEN GOING TO BOTHER,

this law would (thank god) never be passed here, you can shoot who you want, as long as it is not in my direction.

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

phyllis

Which would be fine, considering we all know you stand on gun ownership....


Obviously not, considering most citizens can't have guns there...



As long as you weren't threatening someone with bodily harm on a Florida street, chances are, you wouldn't have to worry about it...

__________________

DudeMan

sorry phyllis but... well duh!!!! if you cant own guns the law is ridiculous.

yeah if i turn to you and say im gonna kill you, you can shoot me.. stupid law. everybody says **** they dont mean,

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

Wintermute

I would suggest that retreating, with or without pointing a gun often is a sensible way to deal with a dangerous situation (but not always). If you think looking like a wuss is worse than someone getting seriously injured or dying, you have your priorities wrong IMO. However, if your life is threatened, running away often isn't the most sensible thing to do. Sometimes you have to fight and if you have a gun, you might as well use it.

I am against gun carrying in general but assuming you aren't, I think this law is a pretty good idea.

__________________
Wintermute

Play EVE online. It's like being an accounting addict in space.

www.MakePovertyHistory.com

CingularDuality

Did you even read the law? Nowhere does it say that you can shoot someone just because they say "I'm gonna kill you".

Sheesh...

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

TheFeniX

Once again: Verbal attacks never constitute the use of deadly force. Now, some guy saying "I'm going to crack your skull open" as he advances with a bat: would constitute the use of deadly force.

Do you just not care to read on this, or is this some kind of on-going Devil's Advocate thing you've had going?

You're looking at this from the stance of a 20-something adult male in his prime. Your comments reflect this: "You should always try to run." Have you ever considered that there are people out there in which running is not an option?

Ask a 57-year old women why she didn't try to out-run a 25-year-old with a knife before she shot him. What chance on God's green earth does she have of out-running him? So, you're saying she should have to turn her back to an armed man trying to inflict harm upon her before she defends her life?

Criminals are getting increasingly more violent. And it's not the polices job to protect individual citizens (as handed down by a supreme court). People need the ability to defend themselves. I don't have to worry about it as much, because I am reasonably fit: I can book it. Plus being 6 foot and 200 lbs, people don't tend to mess with me.

My mother isn't a 6 foot male adult able to out-fight or out-run an attacker.

__________________

phyllis

Which is exactly why the common citizen needs to be able to defend him/herself without having to serve a life sentence over it. There is no reason that one should have to walk down the street unarmed, and at the mercy of a criminal, who by the way would be carrying a weapon whether the law said he could or not.

__________________

section-8

correct me if im wrong but prior to this law being enacted. In florida you absolutely HAD to retreat if you were being threatened. Until the point where retreat was impossible? Only THEN could one defend himself or property?

__________________

CingularDuality

I dunno about using deadly force to protect property... That sounds a bit screwy. Your home, perhaps, but not property.

Otherwise, I think you're right. The problem is that running/retreating often escalates the situation.

Wha? How can this be, you might ask?

Well, criminals carefully choose their victims. They prey on people that look weak, and I don't just mean physically weak. Once they've made their choice, if after confronting their victim, he/she tries to retreat/escape, it often reinforces in their mind the fact that they have indeed chosen a meek victim. If they make their choice and the target instead stands their ground defiantly and confidently, thugs will often play it off and move on to a different victim.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran: