• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

New Florida Gun Law

I haven't read the bill yet, but from what I heard it rectified an earlier law which said the victim must try to get away before resorting to force.
The measure says people under attack don't have to retreat before responding, as long as they're in a place they legally have a right to be.

The bill says the person has "the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."
Sounds like common sense legislation to me.
 
I think we'll be hearing about a new BS defense for murderers.
 
I don't understand the law. It allows one to protect themselves on public property, but most people aren't allowed to carry a gun on public property. Besides it not making total sense to me, it is a good law. Makes criminals think twice before attacking.

Ghandi<Bush,
Are you really with stupid.
 
Florida is a concealed weapon state. People can "defend themselves on the streets without fear of prosecution is drawing praise and fire."

pow: No, I'm not with stupid.
 
I live in florida :) This law won't be changing much for me, but I'm sure the people living in the crime infested parts will find it useful.
 
I find this new gun policy very logical. it's not just going to be a all out gun war in Florida. I have never held a gun in my life but anything that helps the innocent protect themselves, I think it pretty reasonable.
 
There are already self-defense laws. This is law is completely different. If you feel physcially threatened, it is within your legal right to shoot someone? I don't know if you've ever ridden a subway before, but I know that if I shot someone ever time I felt threatened, damn. Just damn.
 
Yeah, but will that hold up in court.

Prosecuter: "Why, did you shoot that man?"

Ghandi b.: "Ummm...He was staring at me wrong, ya know, it was kind of theartening."

Jury: "Guilty"

Come on, the law won't work unless you were being attacked, or they find a weapon on the person that was shot.

pow? Hmmm....I didn't know I was a prisoner of war?! :lol:
 
I think there are many cases in which an "i feel threatened defense" would have worked. I think that this law is very unsafe from a legal stand point.

i called you pow because that was the only way knew to misspell your very short name. Honestly, I thought by doing that it would bring attention to the fact that you are misplacing the "h" in GandHi.

Ghandi? :doh

nah..

Gandhi. :2wave:
 
Yeah, just watch me try to spell his first name. Aww.....who cares? What has Gandhi done anyways! Nah, I'm just kidding (don't snap out on me).

What are the cases where you feel the "I felt theartened defense would work", because all I can think of is if he had a gun, or if he tried to kill you in the past.
 
I agree - Welcome to Debate Politics!
 
Anybody seen a link to the actual text of the legislation?
The Devil's in the details and all that.

Sometimes I have troubles forming an informed opinion w/o being well informed.
 
Here is a link to the final house bill, I haven't seen the signed bill in print yet, but I imagine it's prety much the same.

http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/vie...ctory=session/2005/House/bills/billtext/html/

Note that it isn't the killer bill it's made out to be, as circumstances are specified.

Also note what happened in Louisiana after their "kill a carjacker," and "kill a burglar" laws were enacted. Rates of both went down, with no increase in justifiable homicides

.
 
Yes, exactly what I expected. A common sense law which protects the law abiding citizen's right to defend him/herself anywhere he/she is legally allowed to be.:applaud
 
Hey ghandi, would you be happier if someone outlawed self-defense all together?

In todays world, when somebody defends themselves things get REALLY bad. The way the laws and society is set up, it virtually encourages someone defending themselves to want to strike a lethal blow... They need these laws that Florida is making.

Now, if someone defends themselves and the attacker lives, they're going to be sued a million times, sometimes charged with obscure felonies and fines, and virtually smacked around by lawyers.

You know things are bad when somebody falls through a glass window and a story down while trying to rob a house, he turns around and sues the owner of the property for causing him injury.
 
We needed a law to tell us that we can defend ourselves:roll:
 
The "duty to retreat" is a violation of the most basic and fundamental human right in existence-- one of the few rights that I pay any heed to. If a citizen cannot reasonably expect to be allowed to defend his own person, how can he claim to have any rights whatsoever?

People like to point out that there's been no "crimes against humanity" in Britain or Japan since they've passed their draconian weapons and self-defense laws... without considering that those laws are a crime against humanity in and of themselves.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
The "duty to retreat" is a violation of the most basic and fundamental human right in existence-- one of the few rights that I pay any heed to. If a citizen cannot reasonably expect to be allowed to defend his own person, how can he claim to have any rights whatsoever?

People like to point out that there's been no "crimes against humanity" in Britain or Japan since they've passed their draconian weapons and self-defense laws... without considering that those laws are a crime against humanity in and of themselves.


I am in full agreement here. It is basic Second Amendment logic, if you have no means to enforce a right then it is not a right it is a privilege granted to you by the government that can easily be taken away. Furthermore, what good is the right to bare arms without the right to use them?
 
Back
Top Bottom