Bring your swimsuit and don't forget your gun!!

April 27, 2005 7:25 PM

"The ability to protect yourself, your children or your spouse, is important, no matter where you are." said Marion Hammer, a former president of the National Rifle Association. It's official, don't make any false moves while on vacation in Florida!! You may be shot if you pose a threat.
posted by lee (27 comments total)

I'm safer if you don't have a gun than if I do have one.
posted by dreamsign at 7:29 PM on April 27, 2005

Jeb arms idiots with guns, Edwards sues their ass for lots of money, raising property insurance rates. Both sides of the aisle, working in harmony.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:30 PM on April 27, 2005

We already talked about this, though I can't find the thread. I think the consensus was that this is a stupid law -- but not because it allows people to shoot without running. It's stupid because what this law allows is already allowed - provided you are actually under grave threat. That's what the "self-defense" defense is. If you can prove that the person was attacking you, say, and that you only shot him to protect yourself, you're already ok. Now they are making a law saying just that. So let's not blow it up any larger than it needs to be...
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 7:36 PM on April 27, 2005

Yes, has already been discussed.
posted by oaf at 7:40 PM on April 27, 2005

There was an "it" in there at some point.
posted by oaf at 7:41 PM on April 27, 2005

Yeehaw! Planning a vacation in Florida? You might want to practice yer shootin' skills first, pardner. Let Jeb's brother show you the way.
posted by debris at 7:44 PM on April 27, 2005

It was proposed before, now Jeb has signed it and it is law.
posted by lee at 7:49 PM on April 27, 2005

Do you think people have been waiting for this law to find an excuse to shoot each other? Do you think I shouldn't shoot someone that is trying to kill me?

If you had not been around for so long, I would easily mistake you for a troll.
posted by bh at 7:50 PM on April 27, 2005

"For Violent Crime Florida had a reported incident rate of 812.0 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states."

I don't think this law is going to cause much of a bump in the statistics, one way or the other. It's mostly grandstanding.
posted by warbaby at 8:10 PM on April 27, 2005

Why do idiots always assume that because people CAN use a firearm, it means everyone is going to be taking potshots at anyone who moves? What is wrong with you people, that you cannot see any middle ground and can only rant or rave about extremist views of things?
posted by nightchrome at 8:11 PM on April 27, 2005

So, are you suggesting that we be more centrist-thinking, like the NRA?
posted by ColdChef at 8:15 PM on April 27, 2005

Policeman: But how was he threatening you, sir?
Shooter: You see, I had parked my car and was just leaving when I saw this black man coming fast towards me from the street.
P: But did he had a gun or some sort of weapon?
S: I didn't wait to see, officer. He was coming really fast and staring at me like I don't know, I felt really threatened.
P: Have you thought maybe he was coming fast because he was in a wheelchair?
S: But, but he was staring
P: Maybe he was stating because you parked on a disabled people parking slot?
S: See, maybe that's why he was threatening me.

We all heard about being stopped by the the police all over the US for Driving While Black. How long until we hear about people being shot in Florida for Walking While Black?
posted by nkyad at 8:17 PM on April 27, 2005

I have a friend in Florida who suffered a full-on home invasion a few years ago. 3 am, BAM! the door comes down and three guys with assault rifles charge in, in formation.

This guy reached under his pillow, aimed and fired. Square between the eyes. The other two ran away.

The police said "nice shot, dude!"

I'm way against violence, but geez.
posted by StickyCarpet at 8:21 PM on April 27, 2005

So, are you suggesting that we be more centrist-thinking, like the NRA?

No, I'm suggesting you be more like a reasonable person and think for yourself, rather than jumping to ridiculous conclusions on either side of the board. Stop trying to make this an "us vs them" situation, with the NRA on one side and you and who-knows-what-else on the other side.
posted by nightchrome at 8:24 PM on April 27, 2005

Well, I've thought about it and I completely disagree with a law that says that it's okay to kill someone rather than avoid confrontation. The NRA disagrees with me. How does this make me an unreasonable idiot?
posted by ColdChef at 8:38 PM on April 27, 2005

StickyCarpet, is your friend a drug lord?
posted by nixerman at 8:43 PM on April 27, 2005

I didn't call you an idiot. Nor did I criticize your opinion. What I did was criticize the people who are claiming that this law means everybody is going to suddenly start shooting wildly into the air at the slightest notion of trouble.
You were the one who decided to take my initial post personally.
posted by nightchrome at 8:44 PM on April 27, 2005

StickyCarpet, is your friend a drug lord?

Nah. The neighborhood was a little sketchy, but he was a building contractor and his house looked kind of luxe.
posted by StickyCarpet at 8:58 PM on April 27, 2005

hmmm...

Let me get this straight:
Previously, the law required an attempt to flee before using deadly force on your attacker (with the exception of fleeing from a home-intruder).

Does it really make sense to try to flee from someone who's brandishing a firearm if you are armed as well? Also, if your attacker has a forcible hold on you, wouldn't fleeing first require disabling them (possibly with potentially lethal force)?

Believe me, I am all for some serious gun control in this country. I think that it should be completely impossible for people with criminal records to get a hold of a firearm.
On the other hand, there are plenty of law-abiding people (from both ends of the political/socioeconomic spectrum) who own (and are responsible with) their guns. They're just like you and me and their lives shouldn't be made difficult just for exercising their rights.

Additionally, whoever shoots someone and claims "self defense" is going to be investigated. If they say that they felt threatened (as vague as it is) the police (and maybe even a jury) are going to have to decide if the fear was reasonable. This new law doesn't mean that people are going to start wandering the streets blasting eachother and then saying "I felt threatened" and getting off the hook. It'll be the same as it's always been. If some nervous guy gets an itchy trigger finger and shoots too soon, he'll still have to account for that.
posted by Jon-o at 9:01 PM on April 27, 2005

With the exception of StickyCarpet's video game sequence described above, I don't know if I've ever heard reports of people actually successfully defending themselves with guns. Whenever I hear about guns being used, it's usually by small children who accidently kill themselves or a friend, or by criminals of some sort.

Gun enthusiasts talk about the need for everyone to arm themselves to make the country safer. But has anyone here ever read any statistics about how frequently guns are used by civilians to prevent crimes?

Note: if you want to claim that "just knowing the intended victim might have a gun will reduce the crime rate" please be prepared to back up this claim with statistics showing that states with looser gun laws and higher gun ownership have lower crime rates.
posted by alms at 9:08 PM on April 27, 2005

Does it really make sense to try to flee from someone who's brandishing a firearm if you are armed as well?

Yes.

Always flee.
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:09 PM on April 27, 2005

alms: Yes, there are many such cases. They are never reported on, likely for political reasons. I wish I had the time to hunt up some statistics for you, but I don't. I'm sure if you google, you'll find them.
posted by nightchrome at 9:13 PM on April 27, 2005

Does it really make sense to try to flee from someone who's brandishing a firearm if you are armed as well?

Tactically, I'm much harder to hit while moving, and the man with his gun already out has a much better chance of hitting me while I'm stationary I do of hitting him on the draw. So, yeah, fleeing to cover is plan A.

Then, I guess, blast him.

They are never reported on, likely for political reasons.

Laughable. These are great stories and always play well; here is where they are tracked.
posted by nicwolff at 9:21 PM on April 27, 2005

Laughable. These are great stories and always play well; here is where they are tracked.

Fantastic site, thanks. I just meant that you rarely see these things focused on in the news, the way you see "Kid goes wild, shoots up school" or "Child finds gun in home, shoots self" stories get covered.
posted by nightchrome at 9:26 PM on April 27, 2005

nightchrome writes "They are never reported on, likely for political reasons."

Yeah, the government's really cracking down on those NRA guys!
posted by clevershark at 9:26 PM on April 27, 2005

alms,
I don't know about you but I really don't care how many people own guns. I do, however, care about who owns them. If my yuppie neighbor owns a .357, I don't give a crap. If the guy who stands on my corner at 2am, waiting for his drugs to show up, owns a gun, then I do really really care.

The issue isn't about the civilian prevention of crime through gun ownership. It's about the criminal commission of crime by gun violence.

People who own their guns legally are not likely to go out and start committing crimes and murders with them. Their gun is registered and on record. If the police find bullets or casings, they'll question all the registered gun owners in the area who's weapon matches the caliber. It'd be like mailing your fingerprints to the cops before you leave them all over some crime scene.

Really, the only people who are committing crimes are criminals. They're the ones who shouldn't have guns.

On the whole, I don't think that guns are a good idea at all. In general, they do more harm that good. However, our country has granted us a right to own them. I think that eliminating any of our rights (as "unnecessary" as they may be) is a really scary idea. Scarier than guns, actually.
posted by Jon-o at 9:28 PM on April 27, 2005

clevershark: You'll note I said "reported on", as in "by reporters", such as is done in the media. Not sure where you get the govt. connection, unless you believe the govt. controls all media. Homeowners protecting themselves successfully is not good news. Good news evokes strong feelings of fear, not triumph.
posted by nightchrome at 9:37 PM on April 27, 2005