Florida's new wild west gun law

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Richardols:
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?
Click to expand...
When you believe that he intends to kill you or your family (I’ll limit the scope for the purpose of this discussion). You don’t have to know that is his intention, you just have to believe that is the intention, because you can never REALLY know until they do it. You and your loved ones have just as much right to life as an aggressor, the aggressor is assuming a presumption in favor of their own life when they choose to assault you. You have a moral imperative to preserve your life and the lives of innocents around you. The point is that the level of force used to deter the aggressor must be adequate to stop them, not necessarily kill them. Sometime, the aggressor dies as a result of the use of force, but the intention is using force is not to kill, but to deter.
 
40.png
Apologia100:
When you believe that he intends to kill you or your family (I’ll limit the scope for the purpose of this discussion).
Click to expand...
No, why limit it to such an emotionally charged situation?

What about stopping any criminal? You spoke of killing a person with an appropriate amount of force. A shoplifter? A pickpocket? A creep who gropes your wife?
 
I find it perfectly reasonable for a woman who is a victim of spousal abuse to use a firearm in her defense.Most ‘men’ (I use the term very loosely in this context) who beat their wives eventually go to far and kill them…

And Richardols, if your daughter (or wife) was being assaulted by someone, who appeared to be trying to rape her (ie ripping at her clothing) what would you do? I’m damn sure that I’d draw on the bastard. He’d get one warning, thats all…and he’d better be damn polite.

I carry at all times, and I’m happy that Florida has decided that you should be protected by law if you have to defend your family somewhere other than your home.
 
40.png
Isidore_AK:
IAnd Richardols, if your daughter (or wife) was being assaulted by someone, who appeared to be trying to rape her (ie ripping at her clothing) what would you do?
Click to expand...
Can you envision anything except emotional scenarios?

What about shooting a burglar? Or a shoplifter? Or someone picking a fight?
 
40.png
Richardols:
No, why limit it to such an emotionally charged situation?

What about stopping any criminal? You spoke of killing a person with an appropriate amount of force. A shoplifter? A pickpocket? A creep who gropes your wife?
Click to expand...
If you believe that a criminal only intends to rob, not injure you, you do not have a moral imperative to use force against them. If a thug snatches your wife’s purse and you put three .45 slugs into his back as he runs away, you are guilty of murder, because they level of force used exceeded the threat presented. The person showed no violent intent. If you come home and find the same thug riping your wife’s clothes off at knifepoint, you are well within your rights to put three .45 slugs into his back, if that is what it takes to stop him. If he dies as a result of his injuries, the moral culpability of his death resides in his own aggression. I.e., morally, you are not guilty of murder, he is guilty of his own death.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
If you believe that a criminal only intends to rob, not injure you, you do not have a moral imperative to use force against them.
Click to expand...
I agree, but Apologia100 says that you don’t have to know his intention to shoot him dead, just think he has such intention.

And, you do have a lot of explaining to do to the Prosecuting Attorney so you’d better be damned sure you’re right. Helps to have a good criminal attorney with you when the PA asks you to come by his office.
 
40.png
Richardols:
I agree, but Apologia100 says that you don’t have to know his intention to shoot him dead, just think he has such intention.

And, you do have a lot of explaining to do to the Prosecuting Attorney so you’d better be damned sure you’re right. Helps to have a good criminal attorney with you when the PA asks you to come by his office.
Click to expand...
Richard, you’re an attorney. We all know that. We are not talking about criminal court, but Christian morality. It is obvious if a criminal is showing violent intent and when he is not. A purse snatcher, shop lifter, or even a cat burgler are non-violent criminals. You know in your heart if you feel mortally threatened. If so, you have a right (morally) to defend yourself, to stop an aggressor from attacking you. I didn’t intend for this to turn into a legalistic battle regarding the minutia of details. If you feel your life in jeopardy, or the life of an innocent around your is threatened, you have a moral obligation to stop the aggressor. If the amount of force necessary to stop the aggressor becomes lethal, you are not morally culpable. If you end up having charges pressed against you, that is a different topic altogether.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Can you envision anything except emotional scenarios?

What about shooting a burglar? Or a shoplifter? Or someone picking a fight?
Click to expand...
What’s wrong with shooting a burglar?
 
40.png
Trelow:
What’s wrong with shooting a burglar?
Click to expand...
Legally, probably nothing. Morally, unless you fear for your life, you may be morally guilty of murder. remember there is secular law and then their is the eternal principle regarding the sanctity of life, which even a burgler is entitled to, unless he renigs on that premise by threatening the life or you or your family.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Can you envision anything except emotional scenarios?

What about shooting a burglar? Or a shoplifter? Or someone picking a fight?
Click to expand...
Burgler? He’s invaded my home. Thats a threat to me & my family. If he makes any threatening move he’s dead. If he tries to flee, I’ll let him…but if he moves towards me, or my family I’ll fire. :mad:

Shoplifter, no.

Someone picking a fight? If he pulls a weapon (any weapon) yes, if he attacks an innocent, maybe. If its just a bar room brawl…probably not. Depends on the threat level…

Of course, I live in a pretty gun friendly state…
 
The whole discussion is ridiculous,.

To even suggest that law abiding citizens don’t have the right to arm and defend themselves is asinine. How twisted does ones little mind have to be to think that criminals give a nilly about gun laws?

Read the CCC, then formulate your argument.

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. ... The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. ... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good** requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.** For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
 
40.png
Trelow:
What’s wrong with shooting a burglar?
Click to expand...
They are basically non-violent criminals. And, absent a gun, cops aren’t necessarily going to take your side.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
Legally, probably nothing. Morally, unless you fear for your life, you may be morally guilty of murder. remember there is secular law and then their is the eternal principle regarding the sanctity of life, which even a burgler is entitled to, unless he renigs on that premise by threatening the life or you or your family.
Click to expand...
I’ll not wait until my family is endangered to find out if he’s armed or not. I’ll take the chance in order to preserve my loved ones.
 
Fighting Fat’s original post on the Florida gun law stated that the victim was permitted, on the street, to use “self defense” on an attacker without fleeing first.

That seems to take care of the various arguments about burglars, pickpockets, and non threatening people, doesn’t it?
Self defense argues by its very definition that a person is DEFENDING himself against an ATTACKER.

So, rather than bringing in various “what-ifs” which are not germane to the argument, let’s get back to this:

Fighting Fat, you have posted that you feel that this law will cause more violence, will cause unjust aggression, etc. In addition, you’ve posted that you feel that “suffering” is part of life. You have said that you feel that “deadly force” (which BTW, and I’m sure Richard agrees) is not a SYNONYM for “self defense” can only be used in certain “last resort” scenarios, and from what I get, you apparently don’t think that use of “self defense” which can include deadly force if necessary for self defense is ever justified, and especially not in this proposed Florida law.

You bring up the “sanctity of life”. Scott has shown that according to the Catechism deadly force when used in self defense is not necessarily sinful or a denial of the “sanctity of life”.

But I’m still not quite sure of the point of your post. Is it:
  1. Yanks are gun happy vigilantes and this law proves it.
  2. Yanks would rather shoot first and ask questions later.
  3. Yanks are against the “culture of life” and this law proves it.
  4. Yanks should accept “suffering” and even death if necessary to preserve the “sanctity of life”, instead of trying to defend themselves and risk killing a poor innocent ol’ attacker. . .
A combination of the above? Yet another example of the Yank’s “Ugly Americanism”?

I’d like to think not. But what exactly then IS your point?

(P.S. I am NOT trying to be inflammatory or disrespectful, nor do I deny that Americans, like anyone else, have both individual and group “failings”. . .but I am trying to better understand what you are trying to say).
 
Tantum ergo:
Fighting Fat’s original post on the Florida gun law stated that the victim was permitted, on the street, to use “self defense” on an attacker without fleeing first.

That seems to take care of the various arguments about burglars, pickpockets, and non threatening people, doesn’t it?
Self defense argues by its very definition that a person is DEFENDING himself against an ATTACKER.
Click to expand...
What an attacker is seems to be in the eye of the “defender” given the arguments posted on this thread, so it would seem that one could argue that even a pickpocket was an attacker and so fair game for deadly force. I assure you that there have been very novel defenses presented for a killing of what the shooter insisted was an attacker.
 
Tantum ergo:
I’d like to think not. But what exactly then IS your point?
Click to expand...
Well, the posts so far have given me a fairly good idea of what everyone here thinks.

To me, a law such as this is very frightening, to the majority of posters here it is good and in order. It upsets me that we have to attribute an anti American sentiment to it- it’s a discussion forum and we’re discussing, that’s all. We don’t have stuff like this in the UK, we have an altogether different attitude- The purpose of a gun- the idea implicit in its manufacture- is to kill. As I see it, meeting this kind of thing with yet more violence can only beget yet more violence.
The way I see it, the way I see my faith is that until we find a way to talk- to overcome our differences without us dropping bombs on them, them beheading us etc, etc…It’s all just murder, forget the justifications, the end result is always the same. As for social justice, I bet the people shot, the loved ones of those people, everyone affected do not feel that justice has been wrought.
Perhaps this is why I find it difficult to understand why you can take an intelligent, rational, open minded, travelled American adult, mention guns and see him turn into a frothing psychopath. http://www.dragonslist.com/discussion/images/smilies/smile.gif
As for the ‘Thou shalt not kill’ doesn’t mean kill, means murder thing, it honestly makes me really, really sad. I’ve heard this from a lot of American Christians. Personally I couldn’t disagree more. I think that if you think that, you deny the whole message of Jesus Christ. Pope John Paul taught that God is always on the side of the suffering. His omnipotence is manifested precisely in the fact that He freely accepted suffering.
John Paul said: -

“I proclaim, with the conviction of my faith in Christ and with an awareness of my mission, that violence is evil, that violence is unacceptable as a solution to problems, that violence is unworthy of man…. Now I wish to speak to all men and women engaged in violence. I appeal to you, in the language of passionate pleading. On my knees I beg of you to turn away from the paths of violence and to return to the way of peace” (L’Osservatore Romano, October 1979).

Do you seriously believe he would think it was a good idea to pass a law like this one? That the best way to solve these social issues is to issue everyone with the potential for deadly force?
 
40.png
Richardols:
What an attacker is seems to be in the eye of the “defender” given the arguments posted on this thread, so it would seem that one could argue that even a pickpocket was an attacker and so fair game for deadly force. I assure you that there have been very novel defenses presented for a killing of what the shooter insisted was an attacker.
Click to expand...
Let’s just emulate the defense used by the police when they use a throwdown, or when someone in their custody commits ‘suicide’, or when the driver of a vehicle is found dead with a single shot to the back of the head: “I was put in fear of my life.”
 
Kevin Walker:
Let’s just emulate the defense used by the police when they use a throwdown, or when someone in their custody commits ‘suicide’, or when the driver of a vehicle is found dead with a single shot to the back of the head: “I was put in fear of my life.”
Click to expand...
Sure, let’s commit a criminal act, not counting a sin in doing so. We’re all in favor of moral relativism, aren’t we?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top