Florida's new wild west gun law

[FightingFat]

A law letting people in Florida kill in self-defence on the street without first trying to flee an attacker has been passed by Florida politicians. Florida law already allows people to shoot a potential attacker in their home, place of work or car.

But until now, courts insisted that anyone confronted in a public place should first try to run away.

Critics of the law say it will bring a Wild West attitude to Florida - magnet to hundreds of thousands of tourists.

One critic said all the measure would do is sell more guns and turn the state into a modern version of the OK Corral.

The bill has been heavily backed by the National Rifle Association, the lobbying group which defends the rights of Americans to carry guns.

Dennis Baxley, the Republican sponsor of the Stand Your Ground bill said it was about meeting force with force.

“If I’m attacked, I should not have to retreat,” he said.

The bill has already passed the Florida Senate and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Jeb Bush, the president’s brother.

the cool thing is that when nobody sees ya you can just shoot 'em and say that you were attacked… http://www.dragonslist.com/discussion/images/smilies/wink.gif

Does this contradict a Catholic view of the sanctity of human life? Do you condone this law, or stand against it?

 

[Apologia100]

A law letting people in Florida kill in self-defence on the street without first trying to flee an attacker has been passed by Florida politicians. Florida law already allows people to shoot a potential attacker in their home, place of work or car.

But until now, courts insisted that anyone confronted in a public place should first try to run away.

Critics of the law say it will bring a Wild West attitude to Florida - magnet to hundreds of thousands of tourists.

One critic said all the measure would do is sell more guns and turn the state into a modern version of the OK Corral.

The bill has been heavily backed by the National Rifle Association, the lobbying group which defends the rights of Americans to carry guns.

Dennis Baxley, the Republican sponsor of the Stand Your Ground bill said it was about meeting force with force.

“If I’m attacked, I should not have to retreat,” he said.

The bill has already passed the Florida Senate and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Jeb Bush, the president’s brother.

the cool thing is that when nobody sees ya you can just shoot 'em and say that you were attacked… http://www.dragonslist.com/discussion/images/smilies/wink.gif

Does this contradict a Catholic view of the sanctity of human life? Do you condone this law, or stand against it?

Yes it does violate the sanctity of human life. Anyone who assaults my person, or my family has shown utter disregard for the sanctity of my and my families lives, and I should have the right to use adequate and appropriate force to stop them.

 

[Lance]

Before Florida passed their conceal and carry law, I read about a carjacking down there at least once a month. I don’t remember reading about one since the law was passed. Gun laws(restrictions) do not stop the bad guys from using a gun to do whatever they want to do, they only keep honest people from defending themselves and their property. If you don’t like the new law then don’t go to Florida, if enough people stay away, crime does not go down and/or the state really becomes an OK Corral they will change the law.

Don’t you guys in England have anything to worry about on your side of the ocean? Why are you so concerned about Florida, there are much worse places in the world, much closer to England.

 

[Trelow]

I’ll shoot the bastard trying to rape my daughter, you go hug him.

 

[Apologia100]

Trelow:

I’ll shoot the bastard trying to rape my daughter, you go hug him.

No no no. After he is done, we will sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya and then have an altar call.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Fighting Fat, could you answer this question:

Is there ever a situation where a Christian may use deadly force to defend himself or family?

 

[FightingFat]

Tantum ergo:

Fighting Fat, could you answer this question:

Is there ever a situation where a Christian may use deadly force to defend himself or family?

The way I was taught it, one must have a care to exert the minimum force necessary to avoid someone else being hurt or victimised. Violence is an absolute last resort and, if someone died as a consequence, that would be extremely unfortunate.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Fighting Fat, I agree that it must be a “last resort”. However, picture an elderly lady on a Florida street being accosted by a mugger. She CAN’T flee easily, she is old, probably in poor health. The mugger has some sort of weapon even if it only appears to be his hands. She is in fear of at least some harm, since he is physically threatening her. She pulls out a small legal pistol, warns the thug to back off, but he lunges, she shoots to disable (knee), but he stumbles and she winds up killing him.

This is a tragedy, but consider this. . .

An elderly lady is accosted by a mugger. Can’t flee, no weapons. She is brutally beaten and raped.
Or kidnapped and killed.

These are likewise tragedies.

In the first case, an aggressor who made the first sinful attack is accidentally killed.

In the other cases, an innocent person is deliberately brutalized, raped, or killed.

No wrongful death or deliberate injury is justified, IMO, but in the case of the woman and the mugger’s accidental death, I don’t see that the “sanctity of life” is abrogated or ignored. . .in the other cases, certainly the “sanctity of life” has been deliberately violated.

What do you think?

 

[FightingFat]

I think suffering is a part of life, as has just been poiniently demonstrated to us. I think the attitude there is very different to what it is here. I wonder, do you think that sort of thing goes on here as a matter of course and that if we were sensible, we would all have guns and shoot people who attack us?

 

[Apologia100]

FightingFat:

I think suffering is a part of life, as has just been poiniently demonstrated to us. I think the attitude there is very different to what it is here. I wonder, do you think that sort of thing goes on here as a matter of course and that if we were sensible, we would all have guns and shoot people who attack us?

However, the threat of violence is a strong deterent. In the two states that have no law restricting the possession and concealed carry of firearms, Vermont and Texas, also have the lowest violent crime rates. remember criminals don’t want to get hurt in the process, so if they perceive that their potential victim will shoot them, they will look for an easier target elsewhere.

 

[Brendan]

Apologia100:

However, the threat of violence is a strong deterent. In the two states that have no law restricting the possession and concealed carry of firearms, Vermont and Texas, also have the lowest violent crime rates. .

And violent crime rates dropped dramatically here in Mich when Concealed Carry was made legal.

Interviews with muggers have shown that the biggest deterrent is if they think the target is armed and can defend themselves. ( and for burglars, the biggest deterrent is having a dog)

The deterrent factor alone makes it a very Christian thing to enact.

I have a CPL, and per Pope John Paul, I consider it my Christian duty to defend my family.

 

[wabrams]

I think this is an excellent law. Violent crime in the state of Florida will probably take another drop. Is it Christian? I believe it is. Sometimes we must stop the wolf from attacking or hurting the flock.

 

[Brendan]

FightingFat:

I think the attitude there is very different to what it is here. I wonder, do you think that sort of thing goes on here as a matter of course and that if we were sensible, we would all have guns and shoot people who attack us?

So if you thought it likely that you would be shot, how likely would you be to attempt an attack?

In Switzerland, every male of military age is issued an assault rifle and ammunition. They are required to keep readily accessable at all times. They have the lowest rate of burglary of any nation in Europe, 1/4 that of the UK.

Do you think there might be a correlation?

 

[fix]

A law letting people in Florida kill in self-defence on the street without first trying to flee an attacker has been passed by Florida politicians. Florida law already allows people to shoot a potential attacker in their home, place of work or car.

Good.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

FightingFat:

the cool thing is that when nobody sees ya you can just shoot 'em and say that you were attacked… http://www.dragonslist.com/discussion/images/smilies/wink.gif

Just like the Police! The police are notorious for their use of the ‘throwdown’.

I am a huge believer in an armed citizenry! Here in Massachusetts the mandatory one-year-in-jail for carrying an unlicensed gun has not reduced the murder rate or the gun running. Only the criminals are armed in Massachusetts, the decent law abiding citizen is intimidated by a mile of red tape just to purchase a weapon. And the decent law abiding citizen in not protected by the police, who generally arrive after the fact (after you’ve been robbed, shot, or murdered).

Though Massachusetts residents have the Constitutional RIGHT to bear arms, we are encouraged to excercise our PRIVILEDGE to own a car, telephone, or any other appliance but a gun.

Yet it is proven that an armed society is a polite society, and in states which encourages gun ownership, there is a noticible decrease in murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

St. Paul spoke of self-sufficiency in Phillippians 4:11 (but I do believe he referred to a self-sufficiency in God). But it would seem to me that gun ownership would increase an aspect of self-sufficiency.

"It is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need one and not have it."

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think suffering is a part of life, as has just been poiniently demonstrated to us

Fighting Fat, does that mean that you think that it would be better for the victim, rather than to risk “deadly force” on the attacker, to suffer the unjust attack, even to the point of death, because “suffering is a part of life”?

The victim and family will suffer; the attacker will get what he wants. And if the attitude spreads, then there will be NO deterrent to violence, and we’ll see total anarchy as people divide into two neat groups–those who are attacked for everything from their possessions to their virtue to their very lives, and those who TAKE the possessions, the virtues, and the lives.

Well, maybe that’s a way to get to the Judgment quickly, because there will come a point when all the “victims” will be gone and the aggressors will then turn on each other until only the “strongest” survive, and seeing no need for trappings like religion, start to destroy them, when we know that Jesus will “step in”. . .

 

[FightingFat]

Are you saying that if a woman was beaten by her husband, and he approached her with angry intent for a second time she should shoot him? The presumption is the same- she should shoot him because otherwise he will cause her- an inocent- violence.

There is one simple purpose implicit in the manufacture of a gun. To my mind, that purpose is against Gods law.

It is impossible to say that guns are only going to be used by the righteous.

Say you were woken at night by a disturbance, someone is in your house, the first thing you do is grab your gun and head downstairs. You’re scared and it’s dark- would you shoot first and ask questions later?

One of the Holy Father’s legacies was a rage against the gun culture that our children are exposed to. To legimacise killing gives the wrong signals to our children…

…In my humble opinion.

 

[Apologia100]

FightingFat:

Are you saying that if a woman was beaten by her husband, and he approached her with angry intent for a second time she should shoot him? The presumption is the same- she should shoot him because otherwise he will cause her- an inocent- violence.

There is one simple purpose implicit in the manufacture of a gun. To my mind, that purpose is against Gods law.

It is impossible to say that guns are only going to be used by the righteous.

Say you were woken at night by a disturbance, someone is in your house, the first thing you do is grab your gun and head downstairs. You’re scared and it’s dark- would you shoot first and ask questions later?

One of the Holy Father’s legacies was a rage against the gun culture that our children are exposed to. To legimacise killing gives the wrong signals to our children…

…In my humble opinion.

God’s law says Thou shall not MURDER. Killing an aggressor with an appropriate level of force is not considered murder. The culpability for the death of an aggressor lies with the aggressor, as long as the potential victim used only that level of force necessary to stop him. I.e., they are responsible for their own death.

 

[Richardols]

Trelow:

I’ll shoot the bastard trying to rape my daughter, you go hug him.

What constitutes trying to rape her? Grabbing her? Throwing her down? Ripping at her clothes? Ripping her clothes off?

Do any of those acts, which are basically Attempted Assault or Assault, justify the use of deadly force? At what point is shooting the man to death justified?

 

[Richardols]

Apologia100:

. Killing an aggressor with an appropriate level of force is not considered murder.

used only that level of force necessary to stop him.

If you kill a man with an appropriate level of force, how do you use only the level of force necessary to stop him?

It seems to me that you are saying that it’s acceptable to shoot the man with a pistol but not a cannon?

In either case, you offer no alternative but to kill the person. And, I’d be leery of killing a shoplifter or one not committing a violent crime.