Florida's new wild west gun law

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
FightingFat:
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?
Click to expand...
All killing is not murder. That is why the CCC says what is says. JPII was not in favor of those in charge of innocent life doing nothing while others get murdered. He had police protecting him with guns.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
Isn’t this exactly as I posted earlier?
Click to expand...
Aye, and as Catholics we recognize that if someone is killed in self defense, the assailant is responsible for the death, not the defender.
 
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...
To a degree it is in the discernment of the victim being attacked. Is it possible in the heat of an attack to be mistaken? Yes. Does that mean the person attacked acted immorally? No.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
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.
Click to expand...
Huh?

Here is his actual words.

From Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical EVANGELIUM VITAE
“…legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.”
Click to expand...
And St. Thomas Aquinas postulated in Summa Theologica That is is permissmable for Catholics to be armed ( for defense)
And just as it is lawful for them (Christians) to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): “He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”; (ST II, 40)
Click to expand...
I trust their theology on the subject over yours.
 
40.png
Brendan:
Huh?

Here is his actual words.

From Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical EVANGELIUM VITAE

And St. Thomas Aquinas postulated in Summa Theologica That is is permissmable for Catholics to be armed ( for defense)

I trust their theology on the subject over yours.
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that is why us Americans haven’t been neutered in our God given rights to defend ourselves.
 
40.png
Richardols:
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?
Click to expand...
Just like police and lawyers.
 
Well, it all comes down to relativity and situationalism then, doesn’t it?

Look, every law from the 10 commandments on down can be argued (and frequently is by lawyers, God love 'em) to have “loopholes” of some type.

Since we know that (heaven help us) someone, somewhere, some time is going to “use” those loopholes wrongly, that we shouldn’t have the laws AT ALL?

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that works 100% for every person, every time. . .and not necessarily because it COULDN’T work, but because of the freely willed CHOICE of an individual.

So please don’t tell me that we shouldn’t have a law–any law, not just this–because somebody might “abuse” it. We might as well not have any laws whatsoever with that way of thinking. And we are never going to get (in this life) laws which are abuse-proof. We have to do the best with what we have, deal with law breakers the best we can, trust in God, and follow our WELL INFORMED conscience and the Catechism/ Magesterium.
 
As a resident of the state of Florida, I rejoice to see this law come into being since until now Florida had no self=defense statute and there are quite a number of guys doing prison time for just exactly what this law addresses. As a justice issue I thank God that I can defend myself and my family with less fear of getting entangled in a legal disaster that could imprison me for 20 years or more.

As for guns…I could care less. I’m a 14 year veteran of serious self defense martial arts and won’t carry a gun. (They’re okay…just really loud and messy… 😉
Pax vobiscum,
 
Kevin Walker:
Just like police and lawyers.
Click to expand...
You gave some primo examples of police moral relativism. I’m not saying that my profession is free of such relativists. It isn’t.

I would say, however, that Catholic cops and lawyers should not be counted in that number if they are to be honestly Catholic.
 
40.png
fix:
To a degree it is in the discernment of the victim being attacked. Is it possible in the heat of an attack to be mistaken? Yes. Does that mean the person attacked acted immorally? No.
Click to expand...
Immorally? I’m speaking about illegally. That which can get you in jail, even if you weren’t being immoral.
 
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...
Having taught self-defense to women for many years…this question arises a lot.
The answer: Since one cannot know another’s intent in any assault one has no choice but to defend with the max force necessary to secure your safe egress. It’s a loaded statement, but it’s the only morally and physically reasonable one.
 
40.png
Richardols:
They are basically non-violent criminals. And, absent a gun, cops aren’t necessarily going to take your side.
Click to expand...
Actually, the violence rate when a burgular encounters a home owner is very high.

That is why most states, including MI, have a presumption of violence in a buglary.
 
Church Militant:
As for guns…I could care less. I’m a 14 year veteran of serious self defense martial arts and won’t carry a gun. (They’re okay…just really loud and messy… 😉
Pax vobiscum,
Click to expand...
Then you know, grasshopper, there is no defense against gun-fu, the most powerful martial art of all!
😛
 
Interestingly enough, the law in Arkansas (5-2-620) from where Richard and I both hail is:

"a. The right of an individual to defend himself and the lives of persons or property within his home against harm, injury, or loss by persons unlawfully entering to attempting to enter or intrude thereupon is reaffirmed as a fundamental right to be preserved and promoted as a public policy in this state.

“b. There shall be a legal presumption that any force or means used to accomplish such a purpose was exercised in a lawful and necessary manner, unless the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.”

All too often people with no experience tend to regard deadly encounters as governed by rules, where the victim has plenty of warning and abundent time to consider all possible alternatives. Reality is not like that.
 
Sounds like in order to defend yourself you have to basically be able to proove you were afraid for your life. What about ‘reasonable’ defense Vern? Like here, if I punched someone in the throat and they died, it might be viewed as reasonable. If I tool up a 7 iron and beat them 10 or 12 times having punched them in the throat, that would go against me.

Another Pope John Paul quote-
“Today we too find ourselves in the midst of a dramatic conflict between the ‘culture of death’ and the ‘culture of life.’ But the glory of the Cross is not overcome by this darkness”
John Paul II
 
40.png
FightingFat:
Sounds like in order to defend yourself you have to basically be able to proove you were afraid for your life. What about ‘reasonable’ defense Vern? Like here, if I punched someone in the throat and they died, it might be viewed as reasonable. If I tool up a 7 iron and beat them 10 or 12 times having punched them in the throat, that would go against me.
Click to expand...
All use of force should be held to the Reasonable Man test. But the Reasonable Man should make his decisions based on actual experience, not on theorizing by people who have never been in such a situation.

For example, I make it a point to run the Tueiller drill in any Concealed Handgun class I teach. In the Tueiller drill (named for Dennis Tueiller, an instructor with the Salt Lake City Police Department) the class is divided into teams of three.

One member is the attacker, with a rubber knife. The defender has a dummy gun, the recorder has a clipboard and stopwatch. Attacker and defender stand 21 feet apart. The attacker – at his own initiation – charges and stabs the defender, who attempts to shoot him. The recorder records the time and other pertinent data. Then they rotate positions.

The results of literally tens of thousands of encounters like this (by many instructors) are:
  1. Regardless of age, size, or sex of attacker or defender, the attack takes less than a second and a half.
  2. Most defenders agree they could not have got off an effective shot during the attack.
When combined with data on fatalities from knife wounds (you are more likely to die from a knife attack than a gunshot wound) and the “stopping power” (or lack thereof) of handguns, the Reasonable Man would know that when confronted with a knife at 21 feet, he is in mortal peril.
 
You do have to keep in mind ‘reasonable force’. If I shoot someone 2 to four times (a standard combat response…‘double tap’) it would not be concidered excessive…if I double tap, put the guy down, and then proceed to empty two or three magazines into him as ‘insurance’ it would be excessive.

Its all in the degree of violence used. Enough to neutralize the target is required. You want to stop the attacker as quickly as possible, the fastest way to do that is to kill the target…not shoot at their legs or anything else because:
  1. You’d probably miss, then get killed,
  2. A wounded target is often more dangerous.
  3. Its just stupid, aim center of mass.
 
Excellent thread.

I wonder, how would we feel if our priests packed guns?

I know of at least on priest who does. I believe Father Corapi was recently receiving death threats and he responded that his Magnum awaited whomever would try to kill him. He also requested our prayers that it wouldn’t come to that.

Sincerely,

De Maria
 
40.png
Isidore_AK:
You do have to keep in mind ‘reasonable force’. If I shoot someone 2 to four times (a standard combat response…‘double tap’) it would not be concidered excessive…if I double tap, put the guy down, and then proceed to empty two or three magazines into him as ‘insurance’ it would be excessive.

Its all in the degree of violence used. Enough to neutralize the target is required. You want to stop the attacker as quickly as possible, the fastest way to do that is to kill the target…not shoot at their legs or anything else because:
  1. You’d probably miss, then get killed,
  2. A wounded target is often more dangerous.
  3. Its just stupid, aim center of mass.
Click to expand...
Amen.

The purpose of force in a defensive situation is to get the attacker to STOP, not to kill him. It is unfortunate that people will sometimes be so vicious that you HAVE to use deadly force, but you cease the application of such force as soon as the attack ceases.

However let’s not forget – the PRESENCE of a weapon, or even the POSSIBILITY that the victim may be armed is all that is necessary in the vast majority of cases. (Which explains why violent crime goes down in states with Concealed Handgun Laws.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top