This fucking scares me...

[FragaGeddon]

The bill has been heavily backed by the National Rifle Association.......

:icon27:

[Transient]

i can understand this type of thing for the home, but for anything else - car, work, street.... this is idiocy.

:icon14:

[saturn]

lol, ludicrous. Wild Wild West.

[Massive Quasars]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4415135.stm

wtf is wrong with you people!!?

why does this scare you? you live in sweden

frankly i think europeans are too faggy about firearms.

Unquestionably true.

Though, I think this law goes too far. The earlier law regarding confronting those intruders in your home doesn't seem nearly as problematic, but this law may have significant potential to cause more harm than good. Time will tell I suppose.

[tnf]

lol, ludicrous. Wild Wild West.

No.

You all have this concept that just because there are aggressive laws protecting the rights of victims to protect themselves here we have *rampant* vigilantes running around shooting anything that moves or crosses their property line.

Knee jerk reactions based on gut responses and a severe, irrational fear of guns.

If someone pulls a knife or gun on you in a close quarters situation, and you have a firearm, and are trained in its use, there is no reason you should have to retreat before firing to protect yourself if retreat puts you at a tactical disadvantage.

There will be cases that blur the lines as to what is 'justified' use of the firearm...but I can gaurantee that it won't be this regression to lawlessness with stray bullets flying across the streets as grandmothers try and ice the punk kids who try and steal their purse.

Please tell me, what is ludicrous about not requiring someone to have to run away, potentially turning their back on someone who had the intentions of killing them, before firing a gun at them?
And no, I'm not advocating the use of a gun in every situation (that assumption is considered true to make the US seem even more gun crazy). People will be held accountable if they are grossly negligent in the use of their own personal firearm. This won't be the "wild wild west."

I tend to agree with the Democrats more often than I do with the Republicans, but the comments from the Dems in this article annoy the shit out of me...how is protecting your own life 'devauling life'?

And one more time - we're talking about situations here were you are being attacked and your life is at risk. Don't forget that.

[tnf]

i can understand this type of thing for the home, but for anything else - car, work, street.... this is idiocy.

So if are attacked on the street, in an alley, whatever, by a guy with a weapon and retreat puts you at more risk than shooting the guy...that is idiocy?

That is how I am reading this whole thing...the use of a firearm in a situation where your own life is at risk and where retreat may not provide as safe an alternative as using the weapon.

I guess the arguments that are going to ensue following my previous post can all be avoided if someone can explain to me what you should do in those situations where retreat could get you shot in the back? And why you don't have the right to shoot someone who means to do harm to you?

I know that most purse snatchers and muggers don't necessarily have murder on their mind, but I don't think someone should have to subject themselves to any sort of violence because there are laws against their using a firearm against the attacker.

So to those who would think that I am advocating all out gunfights in the streets over disagreements - please take that last statement into account.

[Massive Quasars]

What sort of attack, or attacker, would justify these actions? Do they explicitly exclude non-violent criminals?

[Dave]

I'm a Democrat

Makes you wonder if you still want to label yourself according to a political party. doesnt it?

[tnf]

I'm a Democrat

Makes you wonder if you still want to label yourself according to a political party. doesnt it?

yea, actually i should have clarified...i tend to side with the democrats on more issues than I do with the republicans.

I'll do that right now.

[tnf]

What sort of attack, or attacker, would justify these actions? Do they explicitly exclude non-violent criminals?

What is a non-violent crime perpetrated on a person you'd be talking about? I'm guessing their not talking about a purse snatching or something to that effect.

[Canis]

It also decreased with higher population density, which may at first sight seem strange, but it should be borne in mind that rural areas, with low population density, often have higher murder rates than the peaceful suburbs.

http://www.americanoutlook.org/index.cf ... il&id=1527

just keep sticking to your false assumptions and denial

I understand your frustrations, however the death penalty argument has far too many holes in it for a conclusive report, so quit flogging a dead horse and scraping the barrel for ideas. None have been convincing to me at all. Additionally, it has nothing to do with a self-defense law...but good attempt at trying to bridge the two. :icon14:

[Hannibal]

He's talking about the .0001% of criminals who brandish bad breath and/or harsh language as weapons.

edit: @ tnf re: MQ

[Canis]

Hmm....interesting.

[+JuggerNaut+]

i can understand this type of thing for the home, but for anything else - car, work, street.... this is idiocy.

So if are attacked on the street, in an alley, whatever, by a guy with a weapon and retreat puts you at more risk than shooting the guy...that is idiocy?

That is how I am reading this whole thing...the use of a firearm in a situation where your own life is at risk and where retreat may not provide as safe an alternative as using the weapon.

I guess the arguments that are going to ensue following my previous post can all be avoided if someone can explain to me what you should do in those situations where retreat could get you shot in the back? And why you don't have the right to shoot someone who means to do harm to you?

I know that most purse snatchers and muggers don't necessarily have murder on their mind, but I don't think someone should have to subject themselves to any sort of violence because there are laws against their using a firearm against the attacker.

So to those who would think that I am advocating all out gunfights in the streets over disagreements - please take that last statement into account.

first of alll, i don't think i would even own a gun. secondly, if i did, it would stay in my house or at the range for practicing. i would never carry one in my car or on my person.

[Massive Quasars]

He's talking about the .0001% of criminals who brandish bad breath and/or harsh language as weapons.

edit: @ tnf re: MQ

On the street, all you may need to rob someone are a pair of quick hands and legs. Those who bother to intrude on others' homes are more likely to be equipped for a battle if one ensues.

[Massive Quasars]

There's little to argue about either way given the lack of information provided in the BBC article.

[Dave]

I'm a Democrat

Makes you wonder if you still want to label yourself according to a political party. doesnt it?

yea, actually i should have clarified...i tend to side with the democrats on more issues than I do with the republicans.

I'll do that right now.

i think it's the same deal as when Americans automatically categorize themselves as Christians. We're a nation that reduces itself to a set of categories and check boxes

[Grudge]

One approach is to define government as the dominant(on top) better decision-making arm of the state, and define the latter on the basis of the control it has over violence and the use of force within its territory. Specifically, the state (and by extension the government) has been considered by some to be the entity that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a territory. This view has been taken by the political economist Max Weber and subsequent political philosophers. The exact meaning of it depends on what is understood by “legitimate”. If we use the term in an ethical sense, then this definition would suggest that an organisation might be considered a state by its supporters but not by its detractors. An alternative definition is to take "legitimate" violence to be simply that which has active or tacit acceptance by the vast majority of the population. In this view, the presence of insurrection or civil war against an entity would jeopardise its claim to be a state, provided the insurrection enjoyed significant popular support. Similarly, an entity that shared military or police power with independent militias and bandits could be considered to have a monopoly on “legitimate” violence but to be failing to enforce it, reducing its claim to statehood. In practice, such situations are often described as "failed states".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government

[Dave]

I don't think Florida is on the right track, but I also don't think Max Weber's legitimate violence theory has anything to do with it either.

Edit: techincally his theory is central to why this Florida thing is whack, but just posting a Wikipedia snippet doesn't exactly make your point very well.

[dmmh]

perfect, just let the cunts destroy eachother

[Ryoki]

So if are attacked on the street, in an alley, whatever, by a guy with a weapon and retreat puts you at more risk than shooting the guy...that is idiocy?

Nice, i see you use the same type of reasoning that republican politicians so often use: make up a highly improbable (but not quite impossible) scenario and use it as a means to justify something totally outlandish. :icon14:

[reefsurfer]

Nice, i see you use the same type of reasoning that republican politicians so often use: make up a highly improbable (but not quite impossible) scenario and use it as a means to justify something totally outlandish. :icon14:

Well put ryoki.

[Nightshade]

lol, ludicrous. Wild Wild West.

No.

You all have this concept that just because there are aggressive laws protecting the rights of victims to protect themselves here we have *rampant* vigilantes running around shooting anything that moves or crosses their property line.

Knee jerk reactions based on gut responses and a severe, irrational fear of guns.

If someone pulls a knife or gun on you in a close quarters situation, and you have a firearm, and are trained in its use, there is no reason you should have to retreat before firing to protect yourself if retreat puts you at a tactical disadvantage.

There will be cases that blur the lines as to what is 'justified' use of the firearm...but I can gaurantee that it won't be this regression to lawlessness with stray bullets flying across the streets as grandmothers try and ice the punk kids who try and steal their purse.

Please tell me, what is ludicrous about not requiring someone to have to run away, potentially turning their back on someone who had the intentions of killing them, before firing a gun at them?
And no, I'm not advocating the use of a gun in every situation (that assumption is considered true to make the US seem even more gun crazy). People will be held accountable if they are grossly negligent in the use of their own personal firearm. This won't be the "wild wild west."

I tend to agree with the Democrats more often than I do with the Republicans, but the comments from the Dems in this article annoy the shit out of me...how is protecting your own life 'devauling life'?

And one more time - we're talking about situations here were you are being attacked and your life is at risk. Don't forget that.

A-FUCKING-MEN.

[Nightshade]

So if are attacked on the street, in an alley, whatever, by a guy with a weapon and retreat puts you at more risk than shooting the guy...that is idiocy?

Nice, i see you use the same type of reasoning that republican politicians so often use: make up a highly improbable (but not quite impossible) scenario and use it as a means to justify something totally outlandish. :icon14:

Yeah, because violent criminals never ever attack armed people that have decided they don't want to become victims.
You know, I'd love to travel to Europe, and I've seriously contemplated moving there, but I'll never understand what you folks have against the idea of self-defense.

[losCHUNK]

tried explaining it before

its like, if we dont arm ourselves then the attacker (or whatever) doesnt feel the need to arm themself

if your going to break into a home knowing that a guy has a gun in there, he aint gunna go in there without 1 and vice versa (if he gets caught why would he risk going to jail for a gun crime)

its better, because it means you can punch someone without being scared of having a bullet hole in your face